Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

SUPREME COURT: PRIZE, ETC., DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, 1939–1945

Account ordered,

"of the Receipts and Payments of the Accounting Officer of the Vote for the Supreme Court on behalf of the Admiralty Division in Prize for the period from 3rd September, 1939, to 31st March, 1945, with a Copy of a Letter from the Comptroller and Auditor General thereon."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON SQUARES (CLOSING)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he is aware of the recent closing of Berkeley Square Garden to the public; and if he will prevent the closing to the public of other London squares which have been open to them during the war years.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): On the advice of the curator of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the Westminister city council, who are at present responsible for the maintenance of Berkeley Square Garden, have temporarily closed the garden for a period of six months to ensure the preservation of the trees. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on 29th October, of which I will send him a copy.

Mr. Davies: While appreciating that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the property surrounding

many of these squares is today occupied by commercial concerns, so that the uses to which the squares were put when they were residential no longer exist, and many office workers will be deprived of their use if they are closed?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the acquisition of those squares which are surrounded by commercial premises, to save them from being closed?

Mr. Silkin: The Question referred to one particular square, the closing of which is temporary. As regards acquisition, I am in favour of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — REQUISITIONED OFFICE SPACE, LONDON

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Works how many rooms are occupied by his Ministry in Lambeth Bridge House, Cleland House, Westminster, and Dean Stanley House, Westminster; and the total number of staff employed therein.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): The number of rooms occupied by the Ministry of Works in Lambeth Bridge House and Cleland House, Westminster, is 591. The total number of staff employed therein is 2,027. Dean Stanley House, Westminster, is not in use, but two rooms in Stanley House are occupied by 12 staff.

Captain Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the question of the Government setting a good example by vacating some of this property?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter of opinion.

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Minister of Works how many square feet of office space, at the address in Westminster of which he has been informed, are now under requisition; by what Government Departments they are now occupied; and what was the average number of staff working there during each of the last three months.

Mr. Tomlinson: In the building referred to 230,128 sq. ft. of office space and 16,170 sq. ft. of basement space are held on requisition. The accommodation is mainly occupied by the Ministry of


Supply but a part is used by the Petroleum Board and a small area by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. The staffs of the Ministry of Supply and Ministry of Fuel and Power in occupation numbered 1,855 on 1st August, 1,774 on 1st September and 1,794 on 1st October. It is understood that Petroleum Board staffs in the requisitioned space number about 200.

Sir H. Webbe: Is the Minister aware that that density of occupation is grossly lower than is common in many commercial concerns, and will he take steps to prevent this absurd and extravagant waste of space by Government Departments in view of the tremendous need of commercial concerns for that space?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Would it not be more economic to use temporary structures for temporary Government offices, rather than to use buildings which are designed for the general convenience of the public?

Mr. Tomlinson: I should want to look into that. With regard to the first supplementary question, I am looking into the question of space occupied with a view to making Government Departments as uncomfortable as other offices.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Uni-Seco House (Cost)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Works whether he will break down the cost of the Uni-Seco house mentioned in the White Paper on the temporary housing programme under the following headings: site preparation, payment to contractors for hull, kitchen-bathroom unit, erection and installation on site, any other charges, Ministry of Works administration and overheads, giving the original estimates which made the total cost in January £772 and the revised estimates given in the White Paper to total £1,020.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. Orders for a a large number of temporary houses and their fixtures and fittings have still to be placed, and many tenders for site preparation and house erection have yet to be invited. It would, therefore, not be in the public interest to publish details of the estimated cost of any one type of temporary house. It may be assumed,

however, that the superstructure or hull represents only about one-third of the cost and that the components and services provided by the Ministry of Works account for the remainder.

Mr. Bossom: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost put on to this charge by the Ministry of Works itself for its own administration?

Mr. Tomlinson: I shall be answering that on a later question.

Repairs, London (Dry Rot)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the many houses suffering from dry rot in the London area; and will he take steps to have such repairs carried out at once or give permission for such repairs to be carried out without licence provided notice is given.

Mr. Tomlinson: My Ministry are normally prepared to admit applications for licences to eliminate dry rot and licences are also granted freely by the local authorities who deal with such applications where the work costs less than £100. I should not be prepared to give permission for such repairs to be carried out without licence.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many houses may have to be pulled down unless this problem of dry rot is tackled ruthlessly; is he also aware that unless it is tackled when it first appears it spreads rapidly, and will he consider allowing this as emergency work?

Mr. Tomlinson: The difficulty is to differentiate between dry rot elimination and other repairs.

Requisitioned Flats, Westminster (Release)

Sir Harold Webbe: asked the Minister of Works how many flats at the address in Westminster, of which he has been in formed, are now under requisition; whether they are still occupied or how long they have been unoccupied; and how soon it is proposed they should be made available for residential purposes.

Mr. Tomlinson: Six flats are held on requisition at the address in question. They have been vacant since the end of August and arrangements had been made to reoccupy them immediately. Efforts


will be made to house the proposed occupants elsewhere and if this can be done the flats will be derequisitioned as quickly as possible.

Sir H. Webbe: For what purpose is it proposed to reoccupy these flats which are so urgently required for residential purposes?

Mr. Tomlinson: It is to make room for a move which is taking place on the part of another Government Department.

Sir H. Webbe: Is this a case of "general post," one Department moving into the room occupied by another, and shall we ever get rid of any of them?

Mr. Tomlinson: While I appreciate the desire to remove Government Departments, while they are in existence they have to be housed somewhere.

Manpower (German Prisoners)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Works what is the total number of German prisoners of war at his disposal and also the number of German prisoners which he has been unable to supply in response to requests from local authorities and statutory undertakings.

Mr. Tomlinson: There are at present 27,700 German prisoners of war at my disposal. The number of prisoners which cannot at the moment be supplied to local authorities and statutory undertakings is 18,634, of which 4,208 are required for work directly in connection with housing.

Mr. Butcher: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is assured of the fullest co-operation from the War Office in securing this German prisoner labour, so that housing plans now held up, may go ahead without further delay?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am asking all the time for full co-operation, and assuming that I am getting it.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether these men, when employed, are paid a full and proper wage, or whether they are being used as slaves, and whether he can tell us when they will be sent home? [Interruption.] I know some hon. Members do not care a damn about slaves.

Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Speaker: That was a most improper remark.

Mr. Stokes: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I was provoked.

Plumbers

Mr. Harold Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware of the position in some districts owing to the call-up or transfer of skilled plumbers which is causing delay in the installation of water supplies and in the repairs to last winter's damage by frost; and what steps he is taking to meet this difficulty.

Mr. Tomlinson: No specific cases of work of the kind referred to being held up have been brought to my attention but if the hon. Member will send me particulars I will have investigations made. I am aware, of course, that, in common with other building trade occupations, there is a shortage of plumbers for building work.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has already had a communication from one urban district in my constituency which was sent on from the Ministry of Health stating that no less than 70 houses still had frost damage from last winter unrepaired?

Mr. Tomlinson: I was not aware of that, but I will look into it.

Prefabricated Houses

Mr. Studholme: asked the Minister of Works what are the agency fees charged by his Ministry for each type of pre-fabricated house; and why such fees are charged.

Mr. Tomlinson: All expenses incurred by the Ministry of Works in providing and erecting temporary houses are chargeable to the Temporary Housing Account. The work includes the preparation of drawings, specifications and quantities, the ordering of supplies, the placing of contracts, the supervision of works and the settlement of accounts. It is not possible to apportion these expenses to each type of house individually, but it is provisionally estimated that they will amount overall to about 2 per cent. of the total cost of the programme.

Mr. Bossom: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he can do that work for 2 per cent. of the total cost of building?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am hoping so.

Mr. De la Bère: That is a very different matter.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Works whether he has already placed orders for all of the 158,480 prefabricated houses, together with all their component parts, as listed in his White Paper, Cmd. 6686, on Temporary Housing.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. The number of temporary house hulls ordered is 128,830 but negotiations are in train with the manufacturers for the extension of the existing orders to cover the further number required. Except for small balances, orders have been placed for all component parts required for the hulls that have been ordered.

Mr. Bossom: Is the Minister sure of his statement that all the component parts for 100,000 odd houses, which he said had been ordered, have already been ordered?

Mr. Tomlinson: Except for small balances.

Mr. Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how small the balances are?

Mr. Tomlinson: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL HALL, WESTMINSTER (UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY)

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Works for what purpose, and for what period, the Central Hall, Westminster has been requisitioned.

Mr. Tomlinson: Arrangements have been made to use the Central Hall for the first part of the first session of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The hall will be required for the period of the Assembly and for such time as is necessary to prepare it for use and to reinstate it.

Captain Gammans: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the requisitioning of this hall is causing great inconvenience to the Methodist community; and would it not have been possible to requisition the Albert Hall or some other building?

Mr. Tomlinson: As a good Methodist I appreciate that point, but we looked all round before we decided to take it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LYCEUM THEATRE (CONVERSION)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Works whether a licence has been granted for the reconditioning of the Lyceum Theatre for use as a dance hall; and what is the amount of works which have been sanctioned.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, for £3,450. Of this only £390 is general building work. The rest is specialist work which does not compete with housing. The dance hall will fill a great need, especially for troops on leave in London.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the Minister say why this theatre was not allowed to continue as a theatre, for which there is also a great need?

Mr. Tomlinson: I am given to understand that it would cost something like ten times the amount to make it into a theatre.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS'TRAINING CENTRE AND HOSTEL, CRESWELL

Mr. Henry White: asked the Minister of Works why he has decided to transfer the Miners' Training Centre and Hostel at Creswell, Derbyshire, to a firm; for what purpose it is to be used; from what date does he intend to let the tenant or owner take over; how many persons are now engaged on the premises; and to what extent fixtures and fittings are being removed from the hostel.

Mr. Tomlinson: There appears to be some misunderstanding as the hostel at present is occupied by the War Office and nothing is known of any suggestion to lend it to a private firm.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (BRIDGE STREET STAIRS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Works when the stairs from the Palace of Westminster to the south side of Bridge Street will be re-opened to Members.

Mr. Tomlinson: The work of removing the concrete emplacement will be commenced in the very near future, and the stairs will then be re-opened.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Miners (Coal Allowance)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether Durham miners receiving an average of 14½ tons of free coal per year and Northumberland miners receiving an average of 12 tons, may also, as members of the public, register with, and buy additional coal from, a coal merchant.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Shinwell): There is no legal prohibition on the registration of miners' premises with coal merchants but, in general, those which receive free or cheap miners' coal are not so registered.

Mr. Keeling: Do the Government intend to continue this dual source of supply which is made use of and which enables miners to receive so much more coal than other members of the public?

Mr. Shinwell: There is not any dual source of supply. It is very rarely that miners who receive this free or cheap coal under the usual district agreements exercise their right.

Mr. Glanville: Will my right hon. Friend attempt, by all possible means, to convince hon. Members opposite that there is no such thing as free coal, and that it is part of the wages?

German Synthetic Oil

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether consideration has been given to the possibility of reversing P.L.U.T.O. and temporarily continuing the output of the German synthetic oil plants and using the wartime system of pipelines to bring petrol to this country from Germany to increase the basic ration.

Mr. Shinwell: The pipeline system known as P.L.U.T.O. has been discontinued and much of the equipment has already been removed. None of the German synthetic oil plants in the British zone is working and accordingly supplies of petrol from Germany are not available.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that petrol rationing is strangling the economic life of the country?

Mr. Shinwell: That is quite a different question.

Petrol Supplies

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what are the total stocks of petrol in this country capable of being used in road vehicles; the monthly consumption of such vehicles in 1938 and at the present time, respectively; and what has been the import per month of petrol over the past three months.

Mr. Shinwell: I could not give this information without disclosing particulars of military requirements, but I may say that stocks of petrol available in this country for civilian consumption are now somewhat lower than the figure for 27th September quoted in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of 9th October.

Sir G. Fox: Is it not time that this plea of military security stopped now that we are at peace? What is the Minister trying to hide? Why not give us the figures?

Mr. Shinwell: I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I have nothing to hide. It never was the custom to disclose military requirements before the war, and it is not intended to do so now.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many gallons of petrol were saved during the last week in September due to restrictions in travel imposed on taxicabs and privately owned motor cars; and what percentage this saving represents on the total petrol consumed throughout the country during that same week.

Mr. Shinwell: Removal of the present restrictions on the movements of taxicabs and private hire cars would lead to an increase in the numbers of such vehicles in operation. It is, therefore, not possible to estimate the savings of petrol resulting from the restrictions.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Three weeks ago the right hon. Gentleman gave me a categorical undertaking that he would give roe this information if I put a Question on the Order Paper. The Question has been on the Order Paper ever since, and now I claim your help in trying to get the information.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. It has nothing to do with me. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has Parliamentary ways of raising the matter on the Adjournment, if necessary.

Sir T. Moore: Is the Minister aware that he seems to know much less about his Department now than he did before he took office?

Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest assured that what I have learned, I will disclose in due course.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the fact that there is now no likelihood that such information will be of any use to our former enemies, he is prepared to give figures of the military needs of petrol and the fullest information as to the demand and available supplies of petrol.

Mr. Shinwell: In the special circumstances of this country it has not been the practice at any time to disclose information about military needs and supplies of petrol, and I would not be justified in departing from this practice.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Will not the Minister take into account that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction about this matter among the business community; and does he not think it desirable to take them into his confidence, and satisfy them that there will be greater supplies of petrol available to them for business needs?

Mr. Shinwell: I have already given the House, in reply to Questions, particulars of the petrol available for civilian consumption. There is no reason to believe that trade has been impeded because of petrol rationing

Captain Baird: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what increase there has been in the consumption of fuel by commercial users since the basic ration was reintroduced.

Mr. Shinwell: The relaxations which my right hon. Friend the Minister of War Transport has been able to make in the rationing restrictions on commercial goods vehicles have led to an increase in the total consumption of these vehicles amounting to about 6 per cent. since last June.

Captain Baird: Can my right hon. Friend give the reason for the increase?

Mr. Shinwell: We are very anxious to stimulate trade, and transport enters into it.

Electricity Supplies (Rural Areas)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in connection with the installation of electricity in farms and buildings in the rural areas, he will introduce legislation, with a view to abolishing the high charges for installation and long-term guarantees, which are at present demanded by many undertakings.

Mr. Shinwell: I am considering these matters in connection with the general reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these matters have been considered year after year and that the rural areas have never been able to get electricity?

Mr. Shinwell: I am well aware that there has been a great deal of delay, but I am going to see that the matter is dealt with very shortly.

Mr. De la Bère: There has been a great deal of wrong-headedness.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the total number of applications from villages throughout the country to have electricity supplied which have not been fulfilled; and the reasons for the non-fulfilment of these applications.

Mr. Shinwell: These applications are made to electricity undertakings and not to the Electricity Commissioners or to my Ministry. The information asked for is, therefore, not in my possession.

Mr. De la Bère: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that he should have this information, and that otherwise nothing will be done and the matter will go on from year to year, as I have already complained?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. Gentleman is very anxious to obtain the information, I shall make inquiries, but in fact it would make no difference to the present position because, owing to a shortage of plant and labour, we cannot get ahead with a lot of work.

Mr. De la Bère: May we have a nice little inquiry together?

Aviation Fuel (Private Aircraft)

Lieut.-Colonel Lindsay: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether a basic petrol ration can now be made available for private aircraft.

Mr. Shinwell: Discussions have been taking place with the Ministry of Civil Aviation in regard to the arrangements for supplying aviation fuel for civil aircraft when the ban on civil flying is removed. I am not yet in a position to indicate what the arrangements will be.

Colliery Officials (Negotiating Machinery)

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has considered a letter from the Midland Counties Colliery Officials' and Staffs' Association, complaining of difficulties in establishing means of negotiation with their employers; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: I am arranging for the matter to be investigated at an early date.

Coal Output

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will, in future, publish weekly the figures of total output of coal per week, along with the output per manshift, for the whole country, together with the figures for the corresponding weeks in the years 1944 and 1943.

Mr. Shinwell: I have decided, as I have already announced, to issue output figures and other key statistics at monthly intervals.

Major Lloyd: Will the output per manshift be included?

Mr. Shinwell: Yes, Sir.

Shop Window Lighting (Christmas)

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if, during the Christmas shopping period, he is prepared to relax the restrictions on shop window lighting.

Mr. Shinwell: I regret that for the present at any rate the fuel situation does not justify any relaxation of the restrictions on shop window lighting.

Oral Answers to Questions — FARM WORKERS (WAGES)

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that whilst a

national minimum wage has been fixed for agricultural workers, miners and railwaymen, there is a wide difference in the wages payable; that this is likely to lead to industrial unrest; and whether he proposes to take any steps to raise the wages of farm workers so that they compare favourably with those received by industrial workers.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): I am aware that rates of wages vary in different industries including the three mentioned. The rates for railwaymen and miners were fixed by voluntary collective bargaining followed in the latter case by an arbitration award; the rate for agricultural workers was fixed by a statutory board operating under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act. I have no authority to override that board in the exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Parliament, and the last part of the Question accordingly does not arise.

Mr. Butcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to institute a reasoned plan for a wages policy for this country?

Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION

Period of Service (Civil Employment)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Labour why military personnel who have been allocated to civilian duties during their military service are not permitted to count the period so covered towards demobilisation.

Mr. Isaacs: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Carnarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) on 23rd August, a copy of which I am sending him.

Sir T. Moore: How can this obvious injustice be justified, since these men did not choose that particular method of serving their country, and were directed?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is now arguing with the Minister and not asking a question.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of allowing periods of release from the Forces to types of civil employment involving considerable personal


risk, such as the repairing of gas mains during the heavy air raids on London and other towns, to count in determining the order of release from the Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I am afraid I could not draw a distinction between civilian employments based on the relative degree of danger to which those engaged in them were exposed.

Mr. Warbey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these men felt that they were doing their country a service by volunteering for duties involving just as much personal danger and hard work as if they were serving with the Colours; and is there not a special case for the consideration of men such as these?

Mr. Isaacs: Such consideration would apply with equal force to the Fire Service, Civil Defence Service, and to engineering workers and others who continued to work during the air raids, and it would be very difficult to draw a distinction.

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Labour if, in view of the recent concession given to men of the R.A.F. that time spent in industry during temporary release shall count as service for grouping, he will consider giving the same concession to men in the Army.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air to the hon. and gallant Member for Waterloo (Captain Bullock) on 10th October, a copy of which I am sending him.

V.A.D. Members

Sir T. Moore: asked the Minister of Labour the policy of the Government in regard to the demobilisation of V.A.D.s.

Mr. Isaacs: Members of the V.A.D. will be released like other members of the Forces in order of age and length of service. They may also be released in Class B if they are willing and suitable to be trained for nursing. The programme of releases and discharges up to June, 1946, is set out in the statement I made on 2nd October, a copy of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member.

Sir T. Moore: Has this statement been communicated to the various members of the V.A.D. service?

Mr. Isaacs: I really could not say, but if it has not been done, it will be done.

Captain Crowder: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if these V.A.D.s are released under Scheme A, they are liable, when they get home to this country, to be redirected by the Ministry of National Service?

Mr. Isaacs: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper, and I will get him the information.

Class B Releases

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Labour how many of the 17,946 persons released in Class B between 18th June and 30th September had been serving in S.E.A.C., in C.M.F., in other theatres overseas and in the United Kingdom, respectively; and if he will give an assurance that potential Class B releases are not prejudiced by reason of distance from home, transport difficulties, or other causes, but are granted on the merits of the individual cases alone, in whatever theatres the persons concerned may be serving.

Mr. Isaacs: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not readily available. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Driberg: Is it not obvious that, in the case of block releases, Service Departments will tend to release whole groups of men who are serving in the United Kingdom, because it is more convenient to do so; and will my right hon. Friend look into that aspect of the question?

Mr. Isaacs: I think, from information already in my possession, that that is not the case, but they are doing the best they can to bring the men home from overseas, in harmony with those who are displaced at home.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement showing the age and service groups in the Army, Navy and R.A.F., according to classified occupations, which will be released in Class B under block arrangements over the next nine months and giving the approximate dates by which each occupation in each Service may expect release.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I am afraid this would not be practicable.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: While appreciating the difficulties involved, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the considerable anxiety which is being experienced by certain people in high release groups who feel that they ought to be released under block release by virtue of their occupation only, and will he consider some simpler form of statement in order to prevent this sort of anxiety and unnecessary trouble arising?

Mr. Isaacs: I would regret it if there were anxiety and unnecessary trouble. The problem is that we try to get out the numbers that are required from the lowest groups at the beginning and then we go up, but I will look into the point the hon. and gallant Member has raised and if there is any way of simplifying it, we will do so.

Vocational Training Scheme

. Major Gates: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the hardship caused to recently discharged ex-servicemen and women through the delay in organising the Government Vocational Training Scheme; and whether he is prepared to authorise the payment of allowances immediately their applications for training have been accepted and they are awaiting joining instructions, in order to save them from drawing too heavily on their war gratuities, which are, in many cases, their only means of livelihood when their demobilisation leave has expired.

Mr. Isaacs: I can assure the hon. Member that I will do all I can to speed up the admission of demobilised men and women to training courses but I could not agree to payment of training allowances pending admission.

Blacksmith (Application)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered the case of 1545828, L.A.C. Walker, K. F., details of which were sent to him by the hon. Member for Eccles on 11th October; when he expects to be in a position to reply to this letter; and if he will authorise the immediate release of L.A.C. Walker.

Mr. Isaacs: I wrote to my hon. Friend about this case on 31st October.

Mr. Proctor: Will the Minister, in view of the anomalies in his instructions, which

stand out clearly in this case, consider amending them now? I would also like to ask if he is aware of the fact that this application would not be sponsored by the agricultural committee because of the fact that only one-third of the work of this blacksmith was performed under that Department, and would not be sponsored by the Minister of Works because he does not—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot go into all the details of a case in a supplementary question; it takes up too much time.

Work Direction

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that the number of men entering the mines, agriculture and the building trades, on demobilisation, will be sufficient to provide for the national requirements of these three services during the coming year; whether any improvements in wages, conditions of work or social services are contemplated; and whether it is the intention of the Government to arrange, continue or extend the direction of labour for these industries.

Mr. Isaacs: The return to their former employment of men demobilised from the Forces whose previous occupation was in the three industries mentioned by my hon. Friend would substantially assist in fulfilling their manpower needs. Whether their full requirements will be met in this way depends on the number of men released in Class A who, though free to take whatever employment they choose during their period of paid leave, do in fact return to their former employment and also on other factors including wastage, normal recruitment from young persons and through training schemes. The question of wages and conditions is one for each industry to settle through its recognised machinery but subject to that my right hon. Friends the Ministers concerned are in close touch with the industries in order to render any assistance possible. The last part of the Question is bound up with the Government's general policy on the control of labour.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister inform the House how young people directed into the Services can go into these three industries?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think that this applies especially to young persons.

Mr. Bossom: But the right hon. Gentleman said that in his answer.

Mr. Isaacs: I will look at the point again.

One-Man Business Owners

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Minister of Labour, if, in view of the misapprehension on the results, he will restate the position with regard to the demobilisation from the Forces of men with one-man businesses.

Mr. Isaacs: I propose to include a statement about owners of one-man businesses in the pamphlet on demobilisation questions which will shortly be made available to hon. Members.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that in one of our great national newspapers, there was a front page headline, on 21st September, saying, "Men who run little businesses to get release?" Will he take steps to see that these men are told the truth?

Mr. Isaacs: I have enough troubles of my own without trying to teach newspapers how to run their business.

Mr. Peake: Can the right hon Gentleman say when this pamphlet will be available, because many Members are being troubled about this question at present?

Mr. Isaacs: We are anxious to get it into the hands of Members as quickly as we can. No delay will be permitted, but we want to make it as full as possible. I cannot promise the date, but it will be out as quickly as we can get it done.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: May we take it that the Class C release scheme, now in operation for Service men, will continue?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot answer that off-hand.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Is there any reason why the House should not have an advance copy of what is to be put into the pamphlet?

Mr. Isaacs: If there is to be an advance copy, why have the pamphlet?

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: On this specific point, I mean?

Mr. Isaacs: Do not let us have any penny numbers.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT STATISTICS

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state for the latest convenient date the number of persons registered as unemployed on the employment exchange registers in Oxford and Merthyr Tydfil, with details as to the numbers of unemployed in the various trades affected.

Mr. Isaacs: A count of the unemployed was made on 15th October, and I will send the figures to the hon. Member when they are available.

Sir G. Fox: Is it the fact that the hard core of unemployment is already at Merthyr Tydfil, and is not this an example of another Socialist Election pledge being broken?

Mr. Daggar: asked the Minister of Labour the number of registered unemployed men and women, respectively, at each of the Newbridge, Abertillery and Blaina and Nantyglo exchanges; and also the steps taken to provide these people with employment.

Mr. Isaacs: A count of the unemployed register was made on 15th October, and I will send my hon. Friend the figures he asks for as soon as they are available. As regards the second part of the question, I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, that three new factories to be built in these areas will provide a substantial volume of employment, and that efforts to secure other new factories or otherwise to provide additional suitable work for workpeople in these areas are continuing. Further, my Department is circulating to these Exchanges vacancies in other parts of the country, so that those workers who are in a position to move to suitable work elsewhere may be submitted.

Mr. Bossom: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in regard to these new factories which are to be built, there are no other factories available?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think I meant to convey that. I was in part of the area


on Sunday, and what is being done is to make use immediately of any factories that can be used, and, at the same time, try and find an opportunity of building other factories for the use of other industries that are willing to go.

Mr. Bossom: Why build new factories when there are other factories in existence?

Oral Answers to Questions — RESETTLEMENT ADVICE OFFICES (REQUISITIONED SHOPS)

Major Guy Lloyd: asked the Minister of Labour how many shop premises in this country have been requisitioned for the establishment of the labour advice bureaux; and what is the annual rent of these shops and the annual wages and salaries bill for their upkeep.

Mr. Isaacs: The Minister of Works, who is responsible for providing accommodation for my Department, informs me that 66 of the 371 special resettlement advice offices have been accommodated in shop premises held under compulsory requisitioning powers. The annual cost of compensation payable to the owners of these premises is about £12,000. The annual cost of their upkeep is not known at the moment.

Major Lloyd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the attitude when the owner of a shop is anxious to get it back; are the Government still as stubborn about it or not?

Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid that I would have to ask my colleague the Minister of Works about that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (INTAKE)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Labour what percentages of this and next month's intakes are to be allocated to the three Services, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: The intakes to the three Services for November and December have been apportioned as follows:—

November:
Per cent.


Navy
18


Army
49


R.A.F.
33


December:


Navy
21


Army
52


R.A.F.
27

Mr. Allighan: In view of the fact that owing to the disparity between the Services relating to releases, the R.A.F. is not in such an advantageous position as the other two Services, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the percentage intake of the R.A.F.?

Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.

Colonel Ropner: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether boys who intend to choose the Army as a life profession are likely to be directed into the Navy or the Air Force?

Mr. Isaacs: That is another question and involves a number of other factors, but if the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down, I will have the matter looked at.

Major Wilkes: In view of the serious discontent which exists in the R.A.F., and of the undertaking given by the Under-Secretary for Air, would my right hon. Friend look into this matter and see that a considerable proportion of the new intake is directed into the R.A.F.? Will not the Minister of Labour look into this extremely serious matter of increasing the intake into the R.A.F.?

Mr. Isaacs: I cannot deal with an undertaking given by my colleague on behalf of the R.A.F., but we have to supply the requirements that are submitted to us by the Departments, and whether the Ministry of Labour has any right to say who should go from one Department to another, I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (SITUATION)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the general situation in Palestine.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies on 2nd November.

Sir R. Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the anxiety in all parts of the House, and the importance of this House having a statement, if possible, before he goes to the United States?

Earl Winterton: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will explain why it was that, a week ago, in reply to a question by me, he said that there would be a definite statement at a very early date, and, if it is not possible to do that, will he issue a communiqué in order to contradict the unwarranted assertion that the cause of the delay is that 400 Socialist Members premised something that cannot be performed?

The Prime Minister: I can deal with that one straight away. It has nothing to do with it. A statement will be made as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR SERVICE OFFENCES (SENTENCES)

Mr. Maxton: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the granting of an amnesty to all Servicemen serving sentences of imprisonment, penal servitude or detention for offences committed during their war service.

The Prime Minister: I have given further consideration to this point, but regret that I am unable to add anything to the reply I gave on 10th October to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aston (Major Wyatt), in which I said that under existing instructions all sentences awarded by courts-martial are reviewed automatically at periods of not more than six months by a superior military authority. At each review such superior military authority has power to remit, suspend or commute the sentence of the court.

Mr. Maxton: May I take it that that is routine? I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, apart from an amnesty, he will consider some general act of clemency which could be operated by these boards in the various Services, or in some other way, maybe, under the Royal Prerogative by the right hon. Gentleman recommending His Majesty along those lines?

Commander Marsden: Before the Prime Minister replies, may I ask him to look into this matter himself? Will he consider, for example, an amnesty to certain men who would never, in the first instance, have been charged under the civil criminal code of this country, though they may have committed Service offences?

The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a special case. What I am being asked for here is a general amnesty, and I am not of the opinion that it is the best way of dealing with these cases. I think the right way is constant and careful review of these cases. Not all the facts are the same. It is no use sweeping the whole lot away as if they were all exactly the same.

Mr. Thurtle: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of these offenders are cases of nervous affection, and will he see that they are looked upon with compassion?

The Prime Minister: Very great care has been taken throughout this war, and we have had experts in these matters to look at these cases which are cases rather for the psychiatrist or psychologist, and not for military punishment. They are looked into very carefully. If the hon. Member has any special cases for the attention of the Service Ministers, I hope he will bring them to their notice, but, in dealing with the general points, I am not prepared to accept the proposition that a general amnesty would be fair.

Mr. Eden: Is it not a fact that throughout the war these cases were dealt with on their merits and were under constant review, and is it not much better to adhere to that practice, which is much fairer to the men themselves?

Mr. Maxton: The war is over.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BUILDING TECHNICIANS, HAMBURG

Mr. Medland: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil, mechanical and technical engineersand architects are employed in Hamburg by the Military Government or Allied Control Commission, in supervising the work of German engineers employed in connection with the city's building administration, housing and other public utility services.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Thirteen.

Mr. Medland: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the recruitment of these very technical people for work in Germany interferes with the rebuilding of such devastated towns as Plymouth?

Mr. Hynd: The policy of the Control Commission in Germany is, as soon as possible, to make the Germans work for themselves, but hon. Members should appreciate that it is impossible to maintain our policy of de-Nazification and control the many aspects of life in Germany, unless we have the necessary staff.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Groups

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total number whose income, after the deduction of tax, ranges between £250 and £500 per annum, and £6,000 and over, for the year ended 5th April, 1939, and the year ended 5th April, 1945.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): Figures for the years 1938/39 and 1942/43, the latest year for which information is at present available, are given in Table 26 of this year's White Paper on the National Income and Expenditure (Cmd. 6623).

Income Tax

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it will always be necessary to propose changes in Income Tax several months in advance in order to give time for new Pay as you earn tables to be prepared; and whether an annual autumn Budget is therefore contemplated.

Mr. Dalton: I am going into this question, but I do not contemplate an annual autumn Budget.

Mr. Daines: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will relieve from the incidence of Income Tax all pensions attached to all war medals and decorations.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. Income Tax is levied, subject to personal allowances and other adjustments, on all income, and I can see no good reason for exempting this particular category of income, as such.

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the non-recurrent nature of the benefits given to personnel of the Armed Forces on demobilisation, he will consider issuing instructions to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that, in addition to those amounts paid or payable as war gratuities,

the sums paid or payable in respect of demobilisation leave be exempt from Income Tax as casual receipts within the existing provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1918.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. This is not possible under the present law, and I do not think that there is sufficient ground for exempting from Income Tax what is, in fact, a continuation of Service pay.

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the expenses allowed to individuals and companies assessable under Schedule D of the Income Tax Act, 1918, are on a more generous scale than those allowed to employees assessable under Schedule E; and whether he will consider amending Rule 9 to Schedule E in order that clerical and manual workers and other persons in receipt of wages or salaries assessable under Schedule E shall be entitled to claim as deductions for Income Tax purposes all expenses necessarily incurred by them in connection with their employment.

Mr. Dalton: Under Rule 9 of Schedule E an employee is already entitled to claim an income tax deduction for expenses incurred by him wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of the duties of his employment. It is true that the Schedule D rule governing expenses is somewhat wider, and I am now considering whether this can be justified.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will a doctor be allowed to deduct the cost of Purchase Tax on his motor car?

Lord Nelson (Annuity)

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sum paid in annuities to the descendants of the brother of Horatio, Lord Nelson; and whether, in view of the fact that the present beneficiary has no issue, he will consider terminating the arrangement.

Mr. Dalton: The total sum paid by the taxpayers since 1806, when this annuity was instituted is £700,000. It is, I think, high time that the present arrangement was reconsidered and I propose to take the matter up with the present Lord Nelson.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with his dying breath, Lord Nelson commended to the


generosity of his country someone quite other than the Rev. William Nelson, D.D.?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Chancellor see to it that there is no question of buying this present gentleman out, as was proposed in a previous instance, because, if he is bought out, the Chancellor knows that he will remain in just the same position?

Cost of Living

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the percentage rise or fall in the standard of living for the decade after the 1914–1918 war; for the decade prior to the outbreak of war in 1939; and for the period since the outbreak of war in 1939 to the nearest convenient date.

Mr. Dalton: I am circulating in the Official Report the particulars requested by the hon. Member in terms of the cost of living index.

Following are the particulars


Cost of Living index changes


index


July,1914
100


1919 average over year
215


1928 average over year
166


1930 average over year
158


1939 average over first eight months
154


September 1st, 1939
155


Octobetr 1st,1945
203

British Museum (Expenditure)

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of His Majesty's Ministers is responsible to Parliament for the expenditure of public money upon the British Museum.

Mr. Dalton: This responsibility rests with me.

Newsprint Imports (Dollar Exchange)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make available the necessary dollars for English paper manufacturers to purchase new and modern machinery in Canada and the U.S.A., particularly since large amounts in dollars have been provided to purchase newsprint from North America, which English manufacturers feel should have been made in this country.

Mr. Dalton: The Treasury provide foreign exchange to pay for any imports licensed by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Osborne: If I bring a special case where one has been turned down to the notice of the Chancellor, will be consider it?

Mr. Dalton: That is automatic. If my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade licenses imports, my officials automatically provide the exchange.

Purchase Tax (Motor Cars)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange for qualified medical practitioners to be allowed to buy motor cars free of Purchase Tax for use in their professional duties.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. All motor cars sold in this country are subject to Purchase Tax, regardless of user.

Major Beamish: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House any good reason why a doctor, who requires a car for use in his practice, should pay Purchase Tax, where a tradesman who requires a van for delivering groceries does not have to pay this tax?

Mr. Dalton: A private car is clearly defined. It would, administratively, be very difficult, and I would not advise the House to attempt it, to remit the tax on certain classes of user. Administratively, it is very troublesome.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is it not desirable that Purchase Tax on London taxicabs should be removed at the earliest possible moment?

American Films (Purchase)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he has authorised the expenditure of over £20,000,000 per annum for the purchase of American films.

Mr. Dalton: Remittances in respect of films are governed by the same rules of exchange control as other transactions. If we have the films, we must pay for them. The amount remitted last year was £17,000,000.

Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what possible justification there can be, in the present food shortage and with the present shortage of dollars, for spending £17,000,000 a year on the importation of these not very good films from the United States?

Mr. Dalton: We must, within wide limits, meet the public desire for entertainment, and it so happens that a lot of people go to see these films.

Mr. Boothby: I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTERS (MOTOR CAR ALLOCATION)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the prewar practices with regard to the allocation and use of motor cars provided at public expense for Ministers of the Government will now be resumed.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. But arrangements have been made whereby cars are now only allocated to Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of Cabinet rank for official use.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS' EXPENSES (GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS)

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement on secretarial assistance and other matters affecting Members of Parliament and their conditions of work.

Mr. Dalton: Yes, Sir, His Majesty's Government are anxious that Members of this House shall have proper facilities for the discharge of their duties, and I shall propose, in the next few days, the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the whole question of hon. Members' expenses and conditions of work.
There are, however, two matters on which I can make a statement now. First, as regards postage I wish to make it clear—in order to remove any doubts which may exist—that any hon. Member wishing to send a letter on an official matter to a Government Department may send it post free, marking the envelope "O.H.M.S.".
Second, as regards travel; His Majesty's Government have decided to propose to the House to extend the existing right to free railway travel between Westminster and an hon. Member's constituency to include railway travel between his home and his constituency and between his home and Westminster, and to cover travel by scheduled air services as well

as travel by rail. I shall ask the House to approve a Resolution to give effect to this proposal.

Mr. Nicholson: That Resolution will be debatable, I suppose?

Mr. Dalton: Certainly.

Mr. Gallacher: May I ask whether this concession on railway journeys between the Member's home and his constituency includes buses?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. A bus is not a railway.

Colonel Erroll: Does the facility of free postage include the sending of free telegrams?

Mr. Dalton: I do not want to promise too much all at once. The Select Committee which we are proposing to set up will have verywide terms of reference and will be able to review all these matters. I am anxious, while setting up the Select Committee with these wide terms of reference, to make two short moves in a direction which I think will generally be regarded as desirable, and I had hoped that these two short steps would be non-controversial. Other matters which come before the Select Committee may be more controversial.

Mr. Cocks: Is the Chancellor aware that the first concession he announced, that is, sending letters without stamps to Ministers, is a common practice?

Mr. Dalton: Not of all hon. Members. I, myself, have done what the hon. Gentleman suggests is a common practice and have never been pulled up for it, but other hon. Members have not done it and, in order to remove doubts, I desire to say that in the view of His Majesty's Government it is proper and legitimate that an hon. Member writing to a Government Department on official business writes "O.H.M.S."

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSULATE-GENERAL, BARCELONA (MR. P. H. G. DORCHY)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Information whether Mr. P. H. G. Dorchy is still employed at His Majesty's Consulate-General in Barcelona as Press Attaché or in any other official capacity.

The Minister of Information (Mr. E. J. Willams): Mr. Dorchy is still employed as Press Attaché at His Majesty's Consulate-General in Barcelona.

Mr. Driberg: Without casting any reflection at all on the ability or character of this gentleman, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that this gentleman served in Franco's artillery during the civil war and holds strong pro-Falangist and pro-Fascist views; and is it suitable that a man with such views should be an interpreter of British policy?

Mr. Williams: My answer to that is that he has served the Ministry for five years in Europe and, as far as I can ascertain, he has served the Ministry satisfactorily.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever Mr. Dorchy's past may be, in the war he has been instrumental in bringing a great number of British prisoners of war across the Pyrenees and in keeping them out of Franco's gaols when they reached Spain?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

National Programme (Wavelength)

Colonel Erroll: asked the Minister of Information, whether he will arrange with the B.B.C. to change the wavelength of the transmission now broadcast on a wavelength of 261 metres.

Mr. Williams: No, Sir. This is the medium wavelength allocated to the national programme and I see no reason why the B.B.C. should be asked to change it.

Colonel Erroll: Is not the Minister aware that this wavelength is very difficult for the owners of utility sets, as the sets do not take this wavelength at all well, and as a change of wavelength would cause a great deal of satisfaction, would he not go back to the old one?

Mr. Williams: I was under the impression that the hon. and gallant Gentleman obtained satisfaction from the President of the Board of Trade yesterday on this matter. It is not really a matter of wavelengths but of sets. Apparently that can be rectified now if the sets are taken to the right people and an adaptor purchased.

Colonel Erroll: Has the Minister tried to take a set to the right people to get an adaptor?

Forces' Educational Programmes

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Information by whom the subject matter of the Forces' educational programmes being broadcast daily by the B.B.C. is selected and approved.

Mr. Williams: The subject matter of the Forces'educational programmes is selected and finally approved by the B.B.C. who, however, are regularly assisted by an Inter-Services Advisory Committee.

Major Beamish: Will the Minister say whether he is aware that several recent broadcasts have had a distinct Left-wing political bias, that this sort of thing has been going on too long, and will he assure the House—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Foreign Affairs (Talks)

Mr. Studholme: asked the Minister of Information whether he will state the policy adopted by the B.B.C. as regards subject matter for talks on aspects of foreign affairs which may be simultaneously the subject of official negotiation; and whether he is satisfied that this policy is in the national interest.

Mr. Williams: The B.B.C.'s policy is to provide informative and expository talks on matters of interest to the public, and the Corporation considers it to be an important part of its duty to help in keeping the public informed about foreign affairs. The subjects selected are normally of topical interest and the B.B.C. do not consider that the fact that official negotiations may be in progress is necessarily a reason against the explanation of the background and of the issues involved for the benefit of the public. The B.B.C.'s aim is to present a fair picture of the issues involved, in accordancewith their trust of impartiality. In questions involving foreign affairs, the normal channels of the Foreign Office are, of course, available for consultation. I am satisfied that this policy is in the national interest and is in keeping with the duties of the B.B.C. under their Charter.

Mr. Studholme: Is the Minister aware that the broadcast talks on foreign affairs


recently given by Professor A. J. P. Taylor and the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) whilst the Conference of Foreign Minister was still sitting, were mischievous and anything but helpful?

Engineering and Equipment Expenditure

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Information if he will state the amount of capital expenditure on engineering and equipment by the B.B.C., from 1st September, 1939, to 31st March, 1945, inclusive.

Mr. Williams: I am informed by the B.B.C. that the Corporation's capital expenditure on engineering works and equipment during the period mentioned was about £3,550,000. In addition, Lend-Lease equipment to the value of £350,000 was brought into service by the Corporation.

Mr. Davies: Was this expenditure sanctioned and paid for out of the grant in aid?

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS MECHANICS (ROYAL AIR FORCE)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Labour whether his Ministry will ensure that, on being called up, all men who are fully trained wireless mechanics will, if otherwise suitable, be drafted into the R.A.F.

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. Wireless mechanics will be posted according to the respective needs of the three Services.

Mr. Allighan: In view of the fact that there is already such a shortage of wireless mechanics in the R.A.F. that those in normal group releases are having their release deferred, would it not be wise to see that trained wireless mechanics are sent into that Service?

Mr. Williams: I cannot accept the statement made by the hon. Member, which is not, I think, in accordance with the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRON FOUNDING (MAN POWER)

Captain Charles Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has examined the skilled labour position in the foundry trade; whether he is satisfied that the number of younger men within the trade is sufficient to meet the future needs; and whether he proposes any steps to attract youths into the trade.

Mr. Isaacs: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to iron foundries in which there is an urgent need for labour, both skilled and unskilled. I have recently arranged for a Committee, on which both sides of the industry are represented, to consider abnormal methods of recruitment of men to meet the immediate problem. Another Committee is inquiring into conditions and amenities in iron foundries. Both sides of the industry are actively engaged in considering the recruitment of new entrants.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (LOST TIME)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Minister of Labour how many man-hours of work have been lost to the nation since 1st August due to strikes and industrial disputes.

Mr. Isaacs: On the basis of such information as is available in my Department, the aggregate number of man-days lost during August and September due to stoppages of work arising from industrial disputes is estimated at about 220,000. Statistics as to the number of man-days lost subsequently are not yet available, but it is provisionally estimated that the number of man-days lost since the end of September through the stoppage of work at the docks is rather more than 1,000,000.

Sir W. Wakefield: Could the Minister give the number of man-hours lost, which is what I asked for in the Question?

Mr. Isaacs: Because of the variation of hours from day to day it was not possible to give the number of man-hours, so we did our best by giving the number of man-days.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Mr. Manningham-Buller: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as conscientious objectors whose pre-registration occupation was that of schoolteacher.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information could only be obtained by a considerable amount of research.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the Minister prepared to give the figures now, because


he invited me last week to put a question on the Order Paper so that he could provide the necessary information?

Mr. Isaacs: With respect, I think I promised the hon. Gentleman that if he would put a question on the Paper I would look at it, and see what was possible. I am not saying that what he has asked for is impossible, but it would require a great deal of research in the Department at a time when we are hard pressed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILICOSIS AND PNEUMOCONIOSIS CASES (TRAINING)

Mr. D. J. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour how many men suffering, from silicosis or pneumoconiosis have been admitted to Government training centres; what occupations they have been trained for; and how many of them have been placed in suitable jobs.

Mr. Isaacs: A search of individual records is necessary to obtain this information, and when I have it I will communicate with the hon. Member. I can, however, say that about 80 men suffering from silicosis and pneumoconiosis have recently been placed in two new South Wales factories, where they are being trained mainly as gas and electric welders.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM ARTISTS'EMPLOYMENT (REGULATION)

Mr. O'Brien: asked the Minister of Labour whether a joint council for the regulation of the employment of film crowd artistshas been set up, as recommended by the court of inquiry set up by the then Minister under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, in its Report, dated 8th January, 1945; and, if not, what steps are being taken to carry out that and other recommendations of the court of inquiry.

Mr. Isaacs: The court's report as a whole was referred to the parties in the hope that it would provide a basis for a full settlement by mutual agreement of the questions between them. I understand that no joint council of the kind recommended by the court has been constituted to date, and so far no request for further assistance has been made to my Department by either party.

Mr. O'Brien: Would my right hon. Friend answer the last part of the Question?

Mr. Isaacs: I think the answer I have given covers the point. Until we get a request from either side, we cannot intervene. This is not a command performance.

MILITARY COURTS (REFERENCES BY MEMBERS)

Earl Winterton: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are now in a position to give a Ruling on the point of Order which I raised last week on the subject of the admissibility under Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure of a question criticising the president of an Allied court in Germany?

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I was asked by the Noble Lord on Tuesday of last week for a Ruling on the question whether the president of a military government court is protected against criticism of his official conduct in the same way as are judges and other persons of high authority, whose conduct cannot be challenged by question in the House or in any other way than by a substantive Motion.
I have been into the matter, and I have delayed giving my Ruling until now, in order to get authoritative information as to the precise status of the president of a military government court. I find that these courts derive their authority from the military commander of the Forces occupying the territory concerned, and are administered by subordinate military commanders. Thus, they are not to be considered as courts in the sense in which we apply the term to a judicial body sitting as a court in this country. All the members of the court, including the president—I apologise for giving a rather long answer—are answerable to the convening officer, namely, the militarycommander of the Forces occupying the territory concerned, for the conduct of the proceedings of the court, and so ultimately to the Secretary of State for War. Their sentences are subject to review by officers of senior rank, appointed for the purpose by the military government, and in certain cases are subject to confirmation by the Supreme Commander.
It does not seem to me, therefore, that either in respect of their status or their responsibility, they can be held to be


analogous to judges of courts in this country who are not responsible to any administrative officer, and whose sentences are only subject to review by superior courts of law. While making no comment upon the subject matter, which elicited the request for this Ruling, I must hold that it is a matter which cannot be excluded from Questions on the grounds submitted by the Noble Lord.

Earl Winterton: May we then gather, Sir, that if any of us wish to put down a Question criticising the composition or the obiter dicta of anything that may occur in connection with the Allied military courts who will try war criminals, we shall be entitled to do so?

Mr. Speaker: That is quite a different question. Allied military courts, I gather, would be somewhat analagous to the Supreme Court. I should require notice of that question, because I have been dealing only with a military court appointed by the military commander of the occupied territory.

Earl Winterton: Then may I formally ask you, Sir, to give a considered Ruling

on the point I have put, as to whether this Allied court would or would not come within Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure?

Mr. Pritt: The noble Lord has referred to Section 155 of the Manual of Procedure, which says that a Member "while speaking on a question" must not castaspersions and so forth. Your reply, Mr. Speaker, covered the matter in a general fashion, but did not specifically refer to that Section. May we take It that you are not ruling that a Member putting down a Question is "speaking on a question," as it may make a difference with regard to other questions that might arise?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought myself that it included everything, and that if a Member puts down a Question he is speaking on it.

NEW MEMBER SWORN

George Edward Peter Thorneycroft, esquire, for the county of Monmouth (Monmouth Division).

BILL PRESENTED

EMERGENCY LAWS (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL

"to provide for the continuation of certain Defence Regulations during a limited period notwithstanding the expiry of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Acts, 1939 to 1945, and for the extension and amendment of certain enactments the duration or operation of which depends on the duration of the said Acts or of the war; for the permanent enactment of provisions contained in certain Defence Regulations; for establishing the ownership of the Crown of goods requisitioned under emergency powers; for empowering local authorities to remove war works and restore land; for the repeal of certain emergency enactments; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, "presented by Mr. Ede; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Westwood, the Attorney-General and Mr. Oliver; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill is of a rather technical nature, dealing with certain aspects of what is referred to in this House as delegated legislation. The House recently has devoted a considerable amount of time to considering that type of legislation, and is anxious to watch it, to be sure that it proceeds on statutory lines and does not transgress certain interpretations which can be put upon it. This particular Bill is designed to clarify and introduce uniformity with regard to certain aspects of that type of legislation. The aspects which it deals with are the laying before the House of Orders made by Ministers, and Orders in Council made under powers conferred by an Act, and the machinery for requiring numbering, publication and sale of copies of such Orders, so that they are made readily accessible to the public, and all persons who have occasion to make use of them.
The House will be aware that the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, familiarly known as the Scrutinising Committee, has been doing valuable work in this regard. Its general terms of reference may be summarised by saying that it is to "keep an eye" on delegated legislation and statutory rules made under powers conferred on Ministers. That committee, which has been sitting since 1944, in October, 1944 presented a special report, in which it called attention to certain anomalies affecting delegated legislation, particularly in relation to the laying before Parliament of Statutory Orders made under powers conferred on a Minister. I propose to refer to these as "statutory instruments" because in the Bill that term has been adopted to describe them. By statutory instruments, I mean all rules, orders, bylaws and Orders in Council, made hereafter under Acts passed hereafter or Acts passed heretofore by Ministers or by His Majesty in Council pursuant to powers conferred by such Acts making such statutory instruments. I propose to refer to them comprehensively, for convenience sake, as statutory instruments. The scrutinising Committee as I say presented a special report in October, 1944. The Coalition Government devoted a great deal of time and thought to the recommendations in the report, and, in particular, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the West Derby Division of Liverpool (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) worked on the questions raised. Now the present Government have inherited that problem with many others from the Coalition Government, and the "Caretaker" Government.
The Bill is designed to deal with these anomalies, and to provide a remedy for certain unfavourable features to which attention was called by the scrutinising committee in their special report. Briefly, the object of the Bill is in the first place, the removal of these anomalies, or supplying some sort of solution for the problems raised by the scrutinising committee. In the second place it seeks to repeal and reproduce what was valuable in the Rules Publication Act, 1893. The report of the Select Committee dealt with the matter, which, so far as present legislation is concerned, rests very largely upon the Rules Publication Act, 1893. Therefore in dealing with the anomalies to which the special report calls attention, the Govern-


ment, in this new Bill, which I am recommending to the House, starts off by repealing the Rules Publication Act and bringing back again all that was good and should be preserved in the Rules Publication Act, and it provides its own remedies for dealing with the other anomalies which are referred to by the Select Committee in its special report.
With that general introduction, I want to examine rather more particularly the recommendations in the special report, and the anomalies with which it dealt. Hon. Members are familiar with the usual forms taken by statutory instruments. They will know that, broadly speaking, if a statutory instrument, that is to say, an Order made by a Minister, under power conferred upon him, is to be laid before the House, it is laid before the House or before Parliament, if it is to go before both Houses, in this form: It has to remain before the House for so many days, and then there has to be a negative Resolution which will put an end to its life, or alternatively, it has to be laid before the House, and then it is brought, shall I say, into permanent life by an affirmative Resolution. The Minister produces the statutory instrument and the power under which he produces it, requires that it shall be laid before Parliament in one of these two forms. That is to say, the Regulation or the Order which the Minister makes under the powers conferred on him, is to lie before Parliament. Sometimes in the first class of case it is said that it shall be valid for the object for which it is passed, unless after the expiry of so many days, a negative Resolution of the House is passed, with regard to that statutory instrument, in which case it comes to an end. The other case is that in which the statutory instrument lies before Parliament but does not have any statutory effect unless, within a certain period, Parliament passes an affirmative Resolution bringing that statutory instrument into effect. Broadly speaking those are the two forms which have been adopted in past and present legislation. It is these two forms to which one must address oneself, in dealing with the matters in the special report.
The scrutinising Committee in their Report called attention in the first place to this; that there is no sort of uniformity in the periods for which statutory instruments have to be laid before the House.

If we examine the various Statutes which have been passed, which have conferred upon Ministers or upon His Majesty in Council the power to make a statutory instrument, we find that some provide that they shall lie before Parliament for 20 days, 21 days, 30 days, 40 days, a month and so on. There is also no uniform provision, as the law at present stands, which states how you are to reckon that period, whatever it is, that is whether you are to take into account the days on which the House is in Recess, when Parliament is prorogued, or when there is a Dissolution and so on. The first anomaly to which the Special Report called attention was that disparity in the periods for which a statutory instrument ought to be laid before Parliament and the disparity in the method of reckoning the periods whatever they were.
The first object of the Bill which I am commending to the House is to remove that anomaly by introducing the necessary legislative machinery to provide that, hereafter, whenever a statutory instrument is made and is laid before the House, under whatever terms the relevant enactment provides, a uniform period shall be adopted in every case, and that that period shall be 40 days; that there shall be, in relation to the period, a uniform method of reckoning the days and that that period shall be reckoned in terms of the days during which the House actually sits, apart from week-ends. That is the first change which the present Bill introduces.
I now invite the House to look at the second anomaly, to which the special Report called attention. Hon. Members will, no doubt, be familiar with the fact that when a Minister has to lay a statutory instrument before the House, in which powers are conferred upon him, it is simply said that he will lay it before the House "as soon as may be." There is no specific time limit imposed upon him. I emphasise that there is no method, within this phraseology, which gives a specific time limit, and as hon. Members no doubt remember, it has in the past led to unfortunate results. On one particular occasion a statutory instrument was not laid before the House for a number of years, because under such phraseology it is reasonablyeasy to overlook the period of time. The special Report drew attention to the very vague phraseology


of the expression "as soon as may be" which is so often found in these instruments, and to the necessity of finding some more specific phraseology for the future so that there shall be a special time in which Ministers shall say that they will lay a statutory instrument before the House. That is the second matter to which the special Report calls attention.
The third matter with which I shall deal in passing, and which was specified in the special Report, is this. It was stated by the Committee that there was no sort of uniformity in enactments, in choosing between cases where the affirmative Resolution procedure is adopted, and cases where the negative Resolution procedure is adopted. I want to dispose of that right away, by saying, quite frankly, that the Bill does not attempt to meet that third criticism. It does not, for this reason, that Parliament must, in its choice of affirmative or negative procedure, depend on the actual type of Regulation which is in question, and the actual type of enactment under which the Regulation is made. I will make no further reference to that third criticism by the Committee. I would point out to the House that the very nature of the problem does a priori mean that, in legislation of this nature, it is better for the Minister to decide what procedure he will or will not adopt. The first two objects of the Bill then are, in the first place to introduce a period during which a statutory instrument must be laid before the House and the method of assessing that period; and in the second place to deal with the phrase "as soon as may be."
I now want to refer to the second set of criticisms because they are also relevant to the matter. I have referred to the Rules Publication Act. That Act has now been in force some 50 years. It has done its work well in some respects, but I ask the House to say it is high time that the Measure should be reviewed and if necessary repealed. This Bill does, in fact, set out by repealing the Rules Publication Act of 1893, but as I have said, it reintroduces its good features. Perhaps I may remind the House of some of the provisions of the Rules Publication Act. It enacted that statutory instruments they were called by another name but I am adopting that term—must be sent to the King's, or in those days to the Queen's printer; that they must be numbered; that

they must be printed, and that copies must be prepared so as to be readily accessible to members of the public, and to any of the people who would have to make use of them. That is one of the good features of the Act and it has worked well, and one of its results is the compilation of that series of Statutory Rules and Orders, which now runs into many volumes and with which hon. Members are familiar—at any rate I hope they are, because it is obviously necessary to have them in some accessible form. That compilation was brought about by the provisions of the Act, and it is provided for, in the present Bill.
The Bill however leaves this out, which was contained in the Rules Publication Act of 1893. That Act provided that in cases of certain statutory instruments—not all, but certain of them—the Minister must before they come into effect, arrange for them to be inserted in the "Gazette" and that information should be given where copies of them could be obtained and representations made by the parties interested to the Minister or the Department which was drafting the statutory instrument in order to help in deciding what its final form should be. That, I might say, was a sort of antecedent publicity which could take place 40 days before the Act was passed. That is what that Act provided and that is what this Bill leaves out. I propose later to give the reason for that omission. Section 2 of the Act is a corollary to Section 1, which provided that notwithstanding that a Minister had to give these 40 days antecedent publicity he neverthless could, in urgent matters, have the power to make what was called a provisional Order, that is to say that where normally he had to give 40 days antecedent publicity, in such urgent cases he could immediately bring the provisional Order into operation. Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute Northern): A provisional Rule.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman—that is correct, a provisional Rule. In order to clear up any possible confusion, I ought to say that the provisional Rule procedure specified by Section 2 of the 1893 Act, has nothing whatever to do with the procedure which is called the provisional Order procedure. That is altogether different. While I am in the course of this digression, may I also point


out to the House that the Bill which I am submitting has nothing whatever to do with the Special Procedure Bill, which the House considered not so very long ago. This is a very wide field and the present Bill is concerned solely with this procedure, and not with the special procedure being set up under the other Bill I have mentioned. I was informing the House of the procedure provided by the antecedent publicity procedure. That procedure has been omitted from the present Measure. It was severely criticised by the special Report, and it has, in my submission to the House, flaws which cannot be remedied except at an excessive cost. It has not really any great value—not sufficient to justify its retention. I will give my reasons later for saying that.
I would like the House to consider briefly the provisions of the Bill. For the benefit of hon. Members who have not copies, I will indicate briefly, by reference to the Clauses, how it sets about achieving the objects I have outlined. Clause 1 defines the application of the Measure generally. It introduces the term "statutory instruments" which I have been using, and it provides that hereinafter where an Act uses that term the provisions of this Bill shall be attracted to that statutory instrument, and shall apply in regard to it. That is for the future. It also applies to statutory instruments such as are dealt with by the Rules Publication Act, 1893. Without being technical, I may say that the net effect is that Clause 1 of the new Measure means that it is to have a general application to all statutory instruments, with very few exceptions with which I need not trouble the House. Generally speaking, from now on all statutory instruments are to be covered by the Bill, and the provisions of the Bill shall apply to all statutory instruments.
Clause 2 introduces the provisions of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, relating to the publication, numbering and the furnishing of copies of statutory instruments. This is a Clause in which is introduced that which was good in the old Act. Without going into it in detail, I can tell the House that it introduces with it an amendment which improves the whole procedure, because curiously enough, the Rules Publication Act, 1893, when it set up this procedure for the publication of statutory instruments, was expressed so as to apply only to statutory instruments

made by the Minister. I am trying not to become too technical. The alteration made by this present Bill is that now not only statutory instruments which are made by the Minister but also statutory instruments which are confirmed or approved by a Minister, are brought within the ambit of the publications procedure. That is the difference between the present Bill and the old Act to which I called attention. It is in the nature of an improvement, because there are sometimes provisions in an Act which provide that a Minister shall have power to approve and confirm an Order made by a subordinate body, and that would not have required publication under the terms of the old Act. It is now required, so that publication is much more comprehensive and embraces all those statutory instruments heretofore not included within the ambit of the scheme.
To hon. Members who have had an opportunity of reading Clause 3 of the Bill, it may seem rather complicated. At first sight it may not be altogether easy to define what its purpose is. I will endeavour to explain it to the House. As I informed the House, one of the points of the special Report was the vagueness of the phrase "as soon as may be." Clause 3 is designed to remedy that position. The special Report suggested that the proper way was to provide that the statutory instrument should be laid before the House within a certain period after it had been made, say five days, a fortnight, or something of that kind. That remedy has not been adopted for the purposes of the present Bill, because it is considered to be unworkable. I will explain what I mean by that. Supposing it is provided that a statutory instrument shall be laid before the House within 10 days after it is made, there must be some sort of sanction to make sure that that provision will be complied with. Obviously you cannot start sending a Minister to prison if he does not comply with it. [Hon. Members: Why not?] That may be a remedy which some hon. Members think appropriate, but we hope to devise a remedy which will be acceptable to all sides of the House. At all events, that is a remedy I would not venture to urge on the House. It is not the one which has been adopted.
It is clear that there must be some sanction; otherwise it is a waste of time to say that a statutory instrument has to


be laid before the House in five days. The only sanction suggested is the sanction that if that is not complied with a statutory instrument should cease to have effect. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members say "Hear, hear," but I respectfully suggest for their consideration that in point of fact that really would not supply the remedy at all. It would lead to the most impossible difficulties in the matter of proof. In every court in the country which had to consider a statutory instrument the person who asserted it and relied on it would have affirmatively to prove that the statutory instrument had come into force. Hon. Members shake their heads, but I do not see how that would be avoided, and in order to do that, they would have to prove affirmatively that the statutory instrument had been laid before the House in the specified period. Whether they would call the Clerk of the House or not I do not know. In any police court throughout the Kingdom where it was necessary to rely on a statutory instrument that procedure, which is obviously a completely impossible one, would have to be resorted to, if that premise is correct. I see hon. Members shake their heads but I venture to suggest it would have to be done and that would be—

Mr. Molson (The High Peak): In the case of an Act of Parliament, which is printed, that is taken as prima facie proof that an Act was duly passed. Could not the same thing apply to statutory instruments?

Sir Harold Webbe: Would it not be possible to prove that a document had been laid by reference to the records of the House, and not by summoning any person such as the Clerk at the Table to give evidence?

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I unwisely and indiscreetly built up a house of cards, and started knocking it down. It is not the remedy I am suggesting. If I may put before the House the remedy I am suggesting in the Bill, and hon. Members think it satisfactory, the question of whether some other remedy might work will not be relevant. Clause 3 provides that in the printed copies which are printed by the King's Printer, there will always be certain information shown on the outside of the Bill. That information.

will be a statment showing the day on which the statutory instrument came into operation.

Mr. Pickthorn: Or will come into operation.

The Solicitor-General: Also it will contain, if I may quote the words of the Clause:
either a statement showing the date on which copies thereof were laid before Parliament or a statement that such copies are to be laid before Parliament.

Mr. Pickthorn: The date on which it was laid before Parliament, or the date on which it has to be laid before Parliment?

Sir H. Webbe: Without limit of time?

The Solicitor-General: I can conceive, as an exercise of the imagination, that the statement might run something like this: "This shall be laid before Parliament at the end of the year after next," but if it did, it would not really be assisting Members very much. If one reads the thing reasonably, it has to be within some reasonable time. It has either been done or is going to be done.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the Bill provides that the Order shall have printed on it the date when the Order was laid before Parliament, does not that dispose of the difficulty with regard to proof?

The Solicitor-General: No, not at all. I was very unwise to embark on a discussion of a solution that I had not adopted. I was trying to make the point that it is no use providing a specific period unless a sanction is provided. The sanction suggested was that if the requirement as to the specific period was not fulfilled the statutory instrument should automatically become void. Therefore, whenever in any court a question arose whether a person had committed any offence in relation to a statutory instrument, it would be necessary for the prosecution to show that at the particular time the statutory instrument had not become void because it had not complied with any specific time limit. That will not apply under the method adopted by Clause 3, because that Clause does not make a statutory instrument void. It says that a statutory instrument shall not be void, in connection with the negative resolution type of statutory instrument, but it


says that on the copy which is published, this information must be shown, so that Parliament and members of the public shall know where they stand with regard to it.
In addition, the Clause says that the Treasury shall make a return to Parliament at specific periods, calling attention to any statutory instrument which has not been laid before Parliament, and explaining why such copies were not laid before Parliament. What is the net result of that? There is no avoiding procedure. Once a Minister has made an Order and it is an Order which would come into effect under the terms of the powers under which he makes it, it shall be in effect. If he forgets to lay it before the House there will be a report to that effect laid before the House by the Treasury, and the Minister will have to explain why he has not complied with the requirements. That is the way in which it is suggested it would work—[Interruption.] Some Ministers might be extremely embarrassed. He will be required to explain why it was not done. Once it has been brought to his attention that it has not been done he will immediately do it. Not only will his attention be called to it by the Treasury's report, but he will have it constantly pressing on his mind, because it is printed outside the statutory instrument that it had come into operation. Therefore, there is provided a procedure whereby everybody is reminded about any statutory instrument that has not been placed before the House, if, in fact, it has not been, and the possibility is thereby lessened.
It is intended to provide against a statutory instrument not being laid before the House through inadvertence because that is the only cause which is likely to lead to its not being laid before the House, and it is in respect of that, that it is proposed to lay down this new procedure. That is the remedy which is proposed in the Bill to meet the complaint or comment contained in the Special Report as to the possible consequences of using this particularly vague language "laid before the House as soon as may be." I want, at this stage, to adumbrate what the scheme is that we propose.

Sir C. MacAndrew: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves this point, I would like to ask him whether I am right in thinking that now "as soon as may be" means any time within twice a year?

The Solicitor-General: I accept that from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It can be construed rather according to one's temperament and point of view.

Sir C. MacAndrew: That is the fact?

The Solicitor-General: Yes, I accept it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's criticism was what he had in mind, because he was very largely responsible for making the comment—an invaluable comment—and he had that in mind. A phrase like "as soon as may be" is extremely indefinite; some people construe that phrase against themselves, and some people construe it very much in their own favour. Possibly, to construe it as meaning six months hence, is going a little far but, in fact, the substance of the criticism remains that we do not want a vague phrase of that sort which, in the past has led to Orders not being laid before the House. One wants to provide by the system which is introduced in the Bill, something which will minimise the risk of that sort of inadvertence, and the sort of inadvertence which led to an unfortunate case during the war. I respectfully ask the House to take the view that the system which is outlined in Clause 3 does, in fact, bring that about. It constantly brings it prominently to the notice of everybody concerned, whether a member of the public who is affected by it, or the Minister or persons in his Department, or Members in the House, that the instrument has or has not been laid before the House, and that it is or is not in force. There is also this report by the Treasury, which, in the event of the statutory instrument not being laid before the House, will ensure that a question is asked and the Minister will have to scratch his head and give an answer.

Sir H. Webbe: If the report is not to be published, members of the public will have no notice whatever.

The Solicitor-General: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Treasury report. The Treasury report will be published, so that hon. Members will know of any case in which there has been failure to lay the statutory instrument.

Sir H. Webbe: And the public?

The Solicitor-General: And the public.

Mr. Maude: How does the Treasury obtain this information, in order


to make the report if there has been no publication? If the Minister has not done his duty, and has made an Order but kept it under his hat, how does the Treasury know?

The Solicitor-General: The Order will be published. Later in the Bill one sees that it will be published and, therefore, the Treasury has only to compare those instruments which, in fact, are laid before the House in the usual way, with the ones which are notified as having been published, and by comparison of the two it will know which ones—

Mr. Maude: I am sorry if I have not made myself plain. I am dealing with the troubles we had in the old days arising from non-publication, and, if I may use a slang expression, where the Minister had kept the thing entirely under his hat. Then, I am sure it must be that the Treasury would never know.

The Solicitor-General: Clause 2 requires that they must be sent to the King's Printer. [Hon. Members: "As soon as may be."] If it is assumed that the Minister is going to commit a double fault and be guilty of a double inadvertence it may be that the Treasury will not know, but it is most unlikely, I suggest to the House, that in the first place it should not be sent to the King's Printer, and so remain on the file in that sense, and that nobody who is affected by it and in relation to whom the Department or the Minister concerned seeks to exercise powers, should not have it brought to the notice or made public that, in fact, an Order had been made. If it is assumed that there is no publication of an Order, that it has not been laid before the House and that it has not been the subject of discussion in the House, then if one finds that under the terms of the Order the Minister seeks, for instance, to requisition somebody's premises, the owner who has his premises requisitioned, without any statutory authority for so doing, will naturally "raise a song and dance" which will bring to light the fact that something has gone wrong.

Sir H. Webbe: But to carry out that requisition a statutory authority will have to exist.

The Solicitor-General: It may be. The question put by the hon. Member was:

How will it come to light and how will the Treasury get to know?

Sir H. Webbe: By someone committing a breach of an Order.

The Solicitor-General: In the case of the Minister being guilty of a double slip-up, I should think it is possible that the first time it would be brought to the light of day would be when somebody committed a trespass.

Mr. Molson: May I put a question, because this is very important? Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say, if this Bill had been in operation, would the fact that the National Fire Service Regulations were not laid, as in fact they were not, be known? My submission is that it would not.

The Solicitor-General: I am told that the National Fire Service Regulations were published.

Mr. Molson: They were.

The Solicitor-General: What happens is that those who were charged by the Treasury with that duty, by comparison of the Regulations which have been, published, with those which have been laid before the House, would very soon ascertain whether those Regulations should or should not have been the subject of a report before the House under Clause 3 (3) of the Bill. That is my answer. In other words, I put it to the House that it is in the highest degree unlikely and is next to impossible that it should come about that a Statutory Instrument should not be laid before the House, and that everybody, including the Treasury, should be unaware of the fact. There is here a scheme which charges a particular Department with the duty of making a careful comparison and analysis, and reporting at regular intervals to the House whether or not there have been instruments which, by inadvertence, have not been laid before the House.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there is in the Bill any obligation on the King's Printer, when he has printed a Statutory Instrument, put a number on it and put upon the face of it the number of days which are allowed for sanction by Parliament, to supply the Treasury with a copy; and if not, ought not there to be such an obligation?

The Solicitor-General: The answer is "No" to both parts of the question. There is no obligation on the King's Printer to provide the Treasury with a copy. The Treasury can find out and, in my submission, such an obligation is not necessary.

Mr. Silverman: Ought there not then to be an obligation on the Department to send a copy to the Treasury?

The Solicitor-General: One answer is that the Stationery Office comes under the Treasury, and, therefore, it would be putting an obligation on the Treasury to furnish a copy to itself.

Sir C. MacAndrew: Could the King's Printer not send a copy to the Library here?

Mr. Speaker: I think we have been long enough discussing these points, which are really Committee points.

The Solicitor-General: It is not a point of substance in my submission and, in view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I will not pursue it further.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would it not prevent a possible loophole, if the Bill provided that no Statutory Instrument should come into operation until it had been printed?

The Solicitor-General: I appreciate the point of the question, but the difficulty is that one occasionally; does get instruments which have to come into operation with the utmost urgency, and printing, however quickly it is done, must of necessity take some time. Therefore, I suggest that is not the ideal solution. Admittedly, it is difficult to find a solution, but here we have a solution which should cover 999,000 out of 1,000,000 cases. It is a simple and workable solution and I commend it to the House. I am not suggesting that it is ideal, because no human instrument is ideal, but it is a workable one.
I now pass to Clause 4 of the Bill, which is designed to introduce a uniform period for which the instrument is to be laid before the House. Hon. Members will see that the period chosen is 40 days. Turning to Clause 6 hon. Members will see that in reckoning the period of 40 days,
No account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or pro-

rogued or during which both Houses are adjourned far more than four days,
so that there is a uniform period and a uniform method of reckoning that period. Applying that to Clause 4, hon. Members will observe that the Clause in terms relates only to one of the two classes of laying before, and not the affirmative Resolution class, as I described it earlier. It purports to introduce uniformity only in the negative class and not in the affirmative class. The reason for that is to be found in the nature of the two categories. In the case of the negative type, the instrument is effective and remains effective unless and until within the specified period there is a negative Resolution which puts an end to its life. In respect of that type, the necessity arises for having some uniform period uniformly assessed so that hon. Members may know where they are and how the time which is allotted for introducing their negative resolution is going, if they think the case calls for such procedure.
In the case of the affirmative type of resolution, I suggest to the House that there is no similar need, because in the case of the affirmative Resolution type the instrument is of no effect, remains of no effect and remains a complete nullity unless and until at some time or other there is introduced an affirmative Resolution which brings it to life and stops it being annulled. Therefore, I urge upon the House that there is a fundamental distinction between the two types. Where as in the case of a negative Resolution there must be some uniformity and some uniform method of assessing the time, in the case of an affirmative Resolution that necessity does not arise because if there is no affirmative Resolution nothing happens, and it is so much worse for the Minister because he does not get his powers effective.
When we turn to Clause 4 we find that the time is only in relation to the negative Resolution type of procedure. Clause 5—and I will not go into details about it—is consequential on Clause 4. Clause 4 relates to the case where the instrument itself has been made and is subject to the negative Resolution. Clause 5 relates to the case where, not the instrument itself but a draft of it, has been prepared, or where the draft of an Order in Council has been prepared. It is in relation to the drafts of Orders in Council that Clause 5 is necessary. Therefore, Clauses 4, 5 and


6 achieve the first object of the Bill, namely, to meet the first criticism of the special legislation which was made in the special Report of the scrutinising Committee. That really deals with the substance of the Bill. Clause 7, looked at very shortly, is a simple regulations Clause, which gives power to make Regulations relating to publication. I have already referred to Clause 8 because it brings within the ambit of the publication scheme statutory instruments confirmed or approved by the Minister as distinct from those which are made by the Minister. Clause 9deals with commencement, Clause 10 with interpretation and Clause 11 repeals the Rules Publication Act, 1893.
Those are the observations I want to make on a scrutiny of the Bill itself. I intimated earlier that I would give the House an indication of the reasons which led the Government to think that it was not desirable to reintroduce the antecedent publicity provisions of the Rules Publication Act. In the first place, as Sections 1 and 2 of the Act stand at the moment, they are defective. They contain very serious flaws. I will indicate briefly what those flaws are, without going into them. Section 1 does not apply to Scotland, and it applies only to a limited class of instrument. It does not, for example, apply to an instrument which has to be laid before the House for a specific period before it comes into operation. It applies to an instrument which has to be laid before the House but not to an instrument which has to be laid for a specific period. Therefore, it applies only to some of them. When one looks at the Provisional Order Procedure one sees that it is defective at present. [An Hon. Member: "Provisional Rule."] Yes, I am sorry. I see that I have introduced a confusion which I may ask the House to be wary of. I should have said the Provisional Rule Procedure. No term is introduced into Section 2 of the Rules Publication Act during which a provisional Rule may operate. Therefore, a Minister may, in a matter of urgency, make a provisional Rule and may forget all about it, and the provisional Rule may remain in operation for ever. That, obviously, is a serious defect.
There is another defect which has led to a good deal of controversy and diver-

gency of opinion among Ministers who have had to use the Section embodying the Provisional Rule Procedure. It is not the least bit clear from Section 2, when you have made a Provisional Rule, and later come to the House to make your final Rule, whether you have to relay your final Rule, or whether the making of the provisional Rule is the "laying" before the House. There is a divergency of opinion on that point. I think I have said enough to show that, as the Act stands and in its present form, it is defective, and that in any case it would require drastic overhaul.
The Government have also taken the view that the antecedent publicity procedure is not worth retaining, for the general reason that, normally, when Ministers or Departments have laid a statutory instrument, they have always discussed the thing in considerable detail with all parties affected. Whatever the nature of the instrument is, public and private bodies will be affected by it when it comes into operation. The normal practice is that the Department will thoroughly consider objections and carefully go into the matter with all those interests who are concerned, before they get to the stage of making a statutory instrument. That process works well in practice, and that fact is reflected in the further fact that although at present there are 200 enactments which attract the antecedent publicity procedure of the Rules Publication Act, in no less than 60 enactments at present in force has it been specifically excluded. That shows that the persons who were concerned regarded the procedure as inapplicable and inconvenient to the purpose of the delegated legislation which they wished to use for the purpose of a particular enactment. Therefore, it was thought that it was not worth retaining that procedure at all.
In substance, what would happen if you retained it is this: You would get the Department discussing the matter with interested parties. The Department, already having discussed it fully and having come to the stage at which they can prepare the instrument, prepare it and publish it. Then 40 days have to elapse, during which nothing takes place. It is a complete blank and a complete waste of time, because the discussions with the interested persons have already been completed and the instrument has been


fashioned as a result of those discussions. You have 40 days, during which you must notify it in the "Gazette," but nothing takes place. Practice and experience have shown that only in the very rarest cases has it been brought about that, during the 40 days in which an Instrument has been notified in the "Gazette" any further point of view has been advanced by any person, any member of the public, as a result of the publication, which has not already been completely traversed and discussed in the preliminary talks with the interested parties. Therefore, the scheme is to jettison all that antecedent publicity as not being worth while retaining.
Those are the observations I want to make with regard to the Bill and I commend the Bill to the House. This Bill is of more importance than might appear at first sight. It is a technical Bill but it deals with an aspect of legislation which is extremely important now-a-days and is likely to grow more important. It is a Bill designed to regularise an aspect of delegated legislation which needs regularisation. That part of the Bill which introduces a standard period, which has been badly needed over a period of years, cannot possibly come in for any criticism. The Bill leaves out altogether a procedure which experience has shown to be not worth retaining, the antecedent publicity procedure. It retains the publicity procedure which consists in the King's Printer making copies and numbering them and so on, so that all Instruments are readily accessible to members of the public and other people who have occasion to use them. It does, in so doing, confer a distinct advantage. It is a useful small Bill, not really controversial in nature, and it is one which, in my submission, should commend itself to the House. In those circumstances, I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I think that the learned Solicitor-General has said enough to show that the present state of the law and practice with regard to delegated legislation is very far from satisfactory. Everyone has agreed, for a long time now, that a Bill to put this matter on the right lines is overdue, but so long as delegated legislation occupied a minor role in our affairs, the defects which existed, while irksome, were not extremely serious. It has now become

clear that the great growth of delegated legislation which took place during the war is regarded by the Government as a good thing and that it is likely to continue. We oppose it and shall continue to oppose it. But if a mass of delegated legislation is to be thrust upon us in the coming years, the case for complete overhaul of the present system is overwhelming.
Therefore we welcome the fact that a Bill has been introduced so as to give the House a chance of considering the fundamental questions—because they are fundamental—which underlie the whole of this matter. It is, indeed, the first opportunity since 1893 that the House has had for such an overhaul. We must treat the Bill on the footing that it ought to provide for a complete overhaul of the principles and procedure within the field with which it deals. The Donoughmore Committee in 1932 made detailed recommendations on this question but few, if any, of those recommendations have received effect in the Bill. Some are probably not now needed, but some are needed very badly. Two important questions of principle emerge at once as we read the Bill but neither—certainly not the first one—has received any consideration from the Solicitor-General. I think the second has not received very much, and then, from a different angle altogether. Therefore the Bill as it stands falls very far short of what it ought to be.
The first point arises in Clause 2. I do not think we have heard anything about it. The Bill permits an Order to become law before it has been published. We regard that as completely wrong in principle. There are many reasons why it is wrong, and other Members who will follow me may give a number of them. I shall limit myself to giving the one which seems to me to be the most important. It is obviously unjust that any man should be prosecuted for having done something at a time when the law against that something existed, but he could not possibly know that the law existed because it had not been published. I cannot believe that anybody in this House can defend that state of affairs, which brings the law into complete disrepute. Therefore, it should not be permitted.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The right hon. and


learned Gentleman mentioned Clause 2. Was he not referring to Section 2 of the 1893 Act?

Mr. Reid: No. I am undoubtedly referring to Clause 2 of the Bill. The Clause says:
As soon as may be after the making of any Statutory Instrument, it shall be sent to the King's Printer.
I wish to digress for a moment to follow the Solicitor-General in his own digression. I was struck by the fact that he made reference, and drew the attention of the House, to the disadvantages that attended the words "as soon as may be", but I find in Clauses 2 and 3 that those are the operative words. It is very odd that the Solicitor-General should commend to the House a Bill yet go out of his way to pour scorn upon the leading words of his own Bill. That is a digression, and I pass to something more important.
I want to be fair. It is not a new thing for a law to come into operation before it is published. I admit that. But this was a much less serious matter before the war than it is now. Before the war there was much less interference with the affairs of the ordinary man by departmental regulations. Therefore, the importance of this question has grown enormously. Further, in a great many cases before the war the things which were prohibited by these regulations were things which an ordinary man would regard as wrong independent of whether they were made illegal, and there is no great hardship perhaps, although it is constitutionally objectionable, in prosecuting a man for doing something which he certainly ought to have known was wrong but did not know was illegal. Today, however, the whole essence of this complicated legislation is to prohibit things which no ordinary man would ever consider wrong, and which are not in the least wrong morally and only become wrong because they have been made illegal. During the war the matter of inadequate publicity of this multitude of Orders gave rise to a good many difficulties. They were got over one way or another, and, in any case, during the war one had to put up with a number of things because events moved so quickly.
Now that we have, I hope, returned to peacetime, it is really intolerable that this old abuse should continue. I ask the Government to think again about this matter, if, indeed, they have thought about it at all. There is no indication from what the Solicitor-General said that they have even considered it. I do not think it is irrelevant to say this. The greatness of this country is to a large extent founded upon our universal respect for the law. People will not continue to respect the law unless they have a fair opportunity of knowing what the law is. There are two matters which we have to consider: is the law readily available, and, once it is available, is it intelligible? I leave to the Junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) the question of the intelligibility of some of these Orders. It would be out of Order to discuss it on this Bill. The question of availability, however, comes in directly. As a bare minimum, you must have a law published and the Order on sale to the public before you can enforce it. The whole of our legal system is founded on the proposition that a man is presumed to know the law and, therefore, he is not entitled to say, "I was ignorant of the law." It is a complete farce to say that a man is presumed to know something which has never been published.
The true position is that if we are to retain the respect of the ordinary citizen everybody must be able to know what the law affecting him is if he chooses to take a little trouble. We should make the amount of trouble he has to take as little as possible. I am sure that the Government will not dissent from that as a general proposition. I should be very surprised if they did. I trust, therefore, that they will agree to incorporate in Clause 2 some drastic Amendments which will give effect to the principle which I have been enunciating. I cannot think what the objection can be. It can only be some kind of administrative inconvenience. If it comes to a conflict between administrative convenience and justice, then, in peacetime at least, administrative, convenience must give way. What is the inconvenience? It is nothing at all. If you want to print an Order urgently, even a long Order, it can be done over night. If the Minister signs the Order at 6'clock in the afternoon, he can have it printed and on his desk next morning, so there is no difficulty about it.


The thing can be done in Hansard every day, and it can be published at the forenoon. Therefore, any possible delay need not be more than 24 hours. There are so many hordes of publicity officials attached to the various Ministries, that the Order can be brought to the notice of all concerned that very day if they choose to exert themslves.
If it were the case that this diligence and expedition were always used by Departments, I should not press the point as I do. In point of fact, because there is no mandatory injunction from this House, Departments are extremely slack in this matter, and we really must take steps to see that it is brought to an end. I find, for example, when I look at the Donoughmore Committee's Report in the Appendix, that as long ago as 1921 the Treasury were drawing the attention of Departments to their slackness in this matter:
The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have had under consideration cases in which complaint has been made of delay in the supply to the public of copies of draft statutory rules and orders…My Lords see no reason why copies should not be placed on sale within the period (normally 24 hours) required by the Stationery Office to print off copies.
Therefore, there is no justification for saying that Orders can be brought into effect before copies are on sale in the Stationery Office. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to give assurances that this Bill will be radically amended in the Committee stage. The Bill should contain a general rule that no Order is to be law until it is published. We can discuss the machinery for that on the Committee stage. How we are to define publication is a pretty easy matter for the draughtsman to solve, but it must be published in some form or other. I am supported in that by what the Donoughmore Committee says in regard to delegated legislation. It has never been challenged by any authority. They say, on page 66 of their report:
Publication—possibly in the Gazette—should be a condition precedent to the coming into operation of a regulation.
They lay that down as a general rule, and I am sure that it is a good one.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to read the subsequent passage of that recommendation?

Mr. Reid: Certainly:
…although in the case of a regulation which has been published in draft in compliance with Section I and is ultimately made substantially in the form in which it has been published, a public notification of the making might be substituted for publication of the text.
I did not read that because I agree with the learned Solicitor-General that we do not require Section 1. All that qualification says is that if you use Section 1 procedure, you need not have republication, but, as we are not going to use that procedure, I did not think that that part was relevant. I am sure that nobody in any quarter of the House can regard this as a political question. I do not see how any right-minded man can dissent from the general proposition which I have put forward. Therefore, I have considerable hope that the Government will be able to give a satisfactory assurance on this question today.
I come to the second question to which the Solicitor-General devoted some attention, namely, Clause 3. It is true, as he said, that there are widespread provisions in many Acts which require the laying of Orders before Parliament. It is true that there are many differences of procedure, and this Bill is a good Bill in so far as it unifies that procedure. Laying may be purely for the information of Parliament, or it may be a preliminary to a negative Resolution for annulment. In either case it is essential that these Orders should be made known to Parliament if Parliament is to perform its essential duty of supervising delegated legislation. I am glad to say that it has been recognised in, I think, all the Bills which this Government have produced, that the supervision of delegated legislation is a proper and necessary part of Parliament's duty. It cannot do it, however, unless it knows what it is it has to supervise. I cannot see any argument against the Departments being required to lay all these Orders on the earliest possible day after they become law. One would have thought that that was an obvious thing for a Department to do, even if they were not told to do it. What do I find, however, in the Special Report from the Select Committee which was published a day or two ago? In paragraph one on page three, they say:
Your committee has had occasion to note, in this as in a previous Session, instances of unpunctual compliance with statutory


directions for laying before Parliament Statutory Rules and Orders, whether in draft or in final form. They believe that the House will attach importance to due promptness in this respect inasmuch as the laying is the first stage in Parliamentary supervision.
As Departments have been exceedingly dilatory in the past, it is essential to put something in the Bill that really has teeth in it to make sure that this practice does not go on. I see no reason why it should not be made obligatory that every Order which has to be laid shall be laid on the first sitting day after it comes into effect. I see no reason for any delay. All a Department has to do is to send copies of the Order round to this House by a messenger. There is no difficulty about that, and no reason why it should not be the very next day that Parliament is sitting. That will avoid any questionof forgetfulness on the part of a Department. If any day is good enough, people tend to forget, but if they, know that it has to be done today or never, they will do it today. Therefore, it will help very much to keep Departments up to the scratch if we stated that on the very first day that it can be done all these documents shall be laid before the House. I cannot see any objection to it.
This Bill is much too weak in Clause 3. There is no sanction at all, as the learned Solicitor pointed out. The only thing it says is that if a Department is slack, the Treasury will lay on the Table a report saying why. There is no opportunity of discussing it. It does not come up in the House in the ordinary course. One may ask a Question of the Minister at Question time, which may never be reached, or one may put a question down for discussion on the Adjournment, and then find that there is something which makes the day fixed unsuitable. Why should we not have a sanction and say that, just as if the Order had been annulled, it becomes void if it is not laid on the first day? The learned Solicitor seemed to think that there would be difficulties about proof in a police court. There is no difficulty in a police court if it is alleged by a defender that Parliament had annulled an Order. The accused person has to prove that it has been annulled. In the same way, why should not the accused person have to prove that the Order was not duly laid? That would solve the whole difficulty. This requirement for laying is not in the interest of accused persons at all. I am

not interested in giving them the right to plead this technical defence. This requirement with regard to laying, is in order to enable this House to carry out its essential constitutional functions. We are not going to be put off by some imaginary difficulty about the conduct of police courts; the draftsmen can perfectly well get over that if they want. If that is the only reason the Solicitor-General can think of for not adopting this rule, he might just as well change his mind and fall in with our point of view on this matter.
Neither of the two suggestions I have made can in any way embarrass any Government in the conduct of its business—not in the least. Neither of those suggestions can in any way prejudice good administration by Departments; on the contrary, they will assist it because they will make it clear that Departments must keep up to scratch, and do their duties promptly and efficiently. The first suggestion will preserve the essential rights of the individual to justice, which otherwise cannot be preserved, and the second will preserve the indispensable control of this House over delegated legislation which is otherwise gravely impaired. I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman should give us a definite assurance today that both my suggestions are accepted in principle, and then we can discuss their working out on Committee stage. If he will do that, all our other points are Committee points; we have various points to bring forward on Clause 7 and otherwise, but on none of them need I dwell at this moment. If however the Government are not prepared to accept these two particular principles, this Bill has such great defects that it is in our view a thoroughly bad Bill and we shall undoubtedly vote against it.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: This is a very technical subject and I am sure the House is indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for the very able and lucid way in which he has explained the provisions and intentions of this Bill to the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) has drawn attention to a Treasury circular of 1921 and to the remissness of Government Departments when there was a Conservative Government supported by an overwhelming Conservative majority


in this House. I should like to congratulate His Majesty's Government on introducing this Bill into the House at this time. The Government, with all their preoccupations, have thought it right to take these long overdue steps to simplify, and introduce a large measure of uniformity into, the regulations with regard to delegated legislation. His Majesty's Government are thereby fulfilling a task which has been long and scandalously neglected by a series of Governments supported by hon. Members opposite, and it is very curious therefore to find that, apparently, hon. Members opposite have not decided whether they are going to support this Bill or whether they are going to oppose it. [Hon. Members: "Oh, yes, we have."] It certainly was not clear from the speech of the right hon. Member for Hillhead.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. As this Bill stands, we will definitely oppose it. We will not oppose it if we get from the Government an adequate assurance that our two objections on points of principle are accepted, but on no other terms.

Mr. Fletcher: Now that we know exactly where we stand, I should like to address reasons to the House why I hope that hon. Members will support the Second Reading of this Bill. Primarily the reason for doing so is this: this House has been returned with a mandate from the electorate for a large legislative programme. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may say that they will oppose delegated legislation, but the programme to which this House is committed by the wishes of the electorate necessarily involves a great deal of delegated legislation, because that is the essential machinery by which the task for which this House is responsible can alone be carried through. Therefore I think that His Majesty's Government, knowing that an increasing amount of delegated legislation is inevitable, are to be congratulated at this early stage in their career on introducing this Bill for the purpose of simplifying and codifying the machinery of delegated legislation and removing the anomalies that have existed since 1893.
As the question of the fundamental principles that underlie this Bill has been raised, I should like for a moment to ask the House, to consider what were the fundamental principles which were con-

sidered necessary as safeguards in 1893 and how they are dealt with today. As I understand the position, the Act of 1893 concerned itself, as indeed did all subsequent Acts conferring rule-making power on Government Departments, with three safeguards. First of all, the obligation for antecedent publicity; secondly, the necessity for adequate publication of delegated legislation, and thirdly, provisions designed to secure adequate Parliamentary control. Let us take these three safeguards which have been considered necessary at various times and see how they are dealt with in this Bill and how the practice now suggested compares with the anomalous, diverse and confusing procedure which has been allowed to grow up during the 50 years or so which have elapsed since 1893.
My hon. and learned Friend has given reasons why this House is now being asked to abandon the principle of antecedent public notification, and I gather that there is no real dissent on the part of hon. Members opposite in that respect. All I would say about that subject is this: I agree with the essential reasons which the learned Solicitor-General has given why it is no longer in practice necessary as a safeguard to insist on antecedent publication. The practice has grown up, as a matter of wise administration, for Government Departments to consult with trade and other interests before Statutory Rules and Orders, or Instruments as they are in future to be called, are promulgated. It seems to me necessary, now that the principle of antecedent public notification is being abandoned, that all Government Departments should be even more circumspect than they have been in the past in making sure that all interests are consulted.
The danger about consulting trade interests is that some interests are tolerably well organised while other interests are not so well organised. One cannot always assume that a combination of trade interests in reality represents any more than the particular vested interests upon which the organisation centres. Therefore it behoves Government Departments, as a practice, not only to make sure that the interests which they consult in these matters are representative of the larger interests, but also to make sure that minority interests which are not so well organised are consulted. Incidentally


the Bill which is being commended for Second Reading departs in this respect of abandoning antecedent publicity from the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee, and therefore it will not do to criticise this Bill on the ground that some of the recommendations of the Donoughmore Committee are not adopted. The whole subject has received a good deal of attention and development since that Committee reported in, I think 1931 or 1932.
What of the other two safeguards, publicity and Parliamentary control? There may well be legitimate matters in that respect for consideration in Committee, but I hope this House will support the Second Reading of the Bill and allow the Committee to which it is committed to consider whether any improvements of the nature which has been referred to can in fact be made. Speaking for myself, I am prepared to believe that there may be practical difficulties about an absolute rule that all Statutory Instruments should be printed before they come into operation, but I earnestly hope that the hon. and learned Solicitor-General will consider before the Committee stage whether some amendment cannot be introduced to give effect to the rule suggested by the Donoughmore Committee that publication should be a condition precedent to the operation of any statutory rule.
I would also like to invite the attention of the Solicitor-General to another aspect which has not yet been referred to. As I understand this Bill, it draws a distinction between statutory instruments which are required to be laid before Parliament and those which are not required to be so laid. Those which fall under Clause 3 of the Bill and have to be laid, have to contain a statement showing the date on which the statutory instrument came or will come into operation. The question I want to put to the Solicitor-General is whether there is any reason why that particular part of the provisions of Clause 3, (1) (a), should not equally apply to statutory instruments which do not have to be laid before Parliament. I should have thought it was just as important and necessary in the case of the minor category of statutory instruments that they also should contain a statement showing the date when they come into operation. If it is necessary in one case, it seems

to me to be necessary in the other. The date on which an Act comes, into force is either the day on which it receives the Royal Assent or a date which is provided in the Act itself, but curiously, the law is most obscure as to the date on which statutory instruments, as they are now called, come into operation, and I hope that an Amendment will be accepted on the Committee stage whereby all statutory instruments in future bear on them the date on which they come into operation.
There is a further detail of this matter of publicity on which I ask the Solicitor-General to give the House some information. The Bill provides, as does the Act of 1893, that the Treasury, with the consent of the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons, can make Regulations with regard to the operation of the Act, and I notice that in Regulation 14 of the Treasury Regulations made under the Act of 1893, there is a provision whereby any statutory rule which is held to be confidential shall be exempted altogether from the provisions of the Act. It is somewhat novel and startling to find that if there is a certificate that a statutory rule is confidential, it should be exempted altogether from any obligation of publication. I would like, therefore, to ask the Solicitor-General whether, in fact, use has been made of Regulation 14 either during the war or before the war, and if so to what extent, and also whether it is contemplated that a similar power will be taken in any Regulations to be made under this Bill when it becomes an Act?
This brings me to the third and, I venture to think, the most important of the constitutional safeguards upon which it is the duty of the House to insist in a matter of this kind, that is, Parliamentary control. Here I think it will be agreed that the Government are entitled to credit for the steps taken in this Bill to tighten up and improve Parliamentary control over executive Departments entrusted with the power of making delegated legislation. The provisions contained, in Clause 4, secure uniformity and remove a good deal of confusion; those contained in Clause 3 of the Bill are designed to secure, and, in my opinion, do secure, that there can be no repetition of the episode that occurred in connection with the National Fire Service Regulations, and thereby recognition is given, which I am sure the


House will welcome, to the principle of securing full Parliamentary control over the actions of Government Departments. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has referred to criticisms of this particular safeguard on the ground that the provisions of the Bill do not go far enough; but the provisions of this Bill go very much further than the provisions of the law as it stands to-day. If improvements are possible, I have no doubt they can be considered on the Committee stage, but in view of the general recognition which this Bill gives to the principles of securing the maximum Parliamentary control over delegated legislation, I hope the House will give it a Second Reading.

5.07 p.m.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute, Northern): In the course of the Debate, reference has been made by more than one hon. Member to the Special Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, over which I have the honour to preside. I think it only fair to say that that Select Committee has the great advantage of having the assistance of Counsel to Mr. Speaker. Sir Cecil Carr has, I suppose, the greatest knowledge of delegated legislation of anyone in the country, and although he has a wonderful memory, I think I am right when I say that he has forgotten more about Statutory Rules and Orders than I shall ever know.
Let me say here that I am speaking entirely for myself and not for the Select Committee, although I am sure the Select Committee would endorse what I have already said. The Bill which we are now considering deals largely with the machinery of delegated legislation. As the Donoughmore Report pointed out, something should be done to simplify that machinery. I think that is true. The Select Committee pointed out in its Report a year ago that the matter was ripe for revision, and I am glad that something is being done in this respect. The first point which the Solicitor-General made concerned the time during which statutory instruments should lie upon the Table. The hon. and learned Gentleman understated the case, because some of them lie for 100 days, but I think 40 days is a good period. The Donoughmore Committee recommended 28 days, but I think that, from the point of view of the scrutinising Committee, 40 day sis the right period, and

I hope nothing will be done in the Committee stage to alter the 40 days. The draftsman has had certain difficulties with this Bill, because the Clauses are largely in duplicate, the existing exercises of delegated legislation on the one hand and future exercises on the other, and the draftsman has had to put them all under one hat. I think that has been done satisfactorily. He has picked out a general label for what we used to describe as S.R. & O., and the term "statutory instrument" covers not only S.R. & O. but regulations, schemes, warrants and everything of that kind. By the insertion in future Measures of the phrase,
The Minister may by statutory instrument make regulations for the purpose of this Act"—
it will be possible to bring in everything we are considering under the Bill we are now discussing. As regards making the matter simpler, I asked hon. Members to look at the definition of what is a statutory instrument in Clause 1 (1, b):
in the case of a power conferred on a Minister of the Crown, to be exercisable by statutory instrument,
any document by which that power is exercised shall be known as a 'statutory instrument.' 
Does that make it simpler? When a thing is denned in terms of itself, it is not a very good definition. It seems to me to be so simple that it is silly. In Clause 1 (1), we find that the present law is being extended, because now the Minister maybe given power, to confirm and approve these statutory instruments. What will be the result of that? It will mean that local by-laws, railway by-laws and so on will now all come under Statutory Rules and Orders. What will be the effect of that on the registration system? Will it not be swamped if all these are brought in? The net is thrown very wide. If we turn to Clause 7 (1, d), we find that many of the things roped in by Clause 1 are being let out again. Could it not be made clear in the Bill what is being brought in and what is not? I see no reason why that should not be done, and it would be a great help if it were done. I hope the Solicitor-General will look into that matter before we come to the Committee stage. On Clause 7 (1, e), who are the persons who are to decide these various matters? Surely we can be given some indication. Is this a new provision? The 40 days' notice is being discontinued, and personally I do


not think that matters very much. As far as Scotland is concerned, it was never included, and I have never heard of any complaint.
There is, however, one thing on which I think we ought to have a promise. The Solicitor-General mentioned that there would be consultation with interested parties. I think some provision should be put into the Bill that there must be consultation. The Solicitor-General gave a very fair indication, but what he said is not the law, and I think it should be included in the Bill that consultations must take place. Consultations, of course, go on today, and Departments have consultations with interested parties out of self-defence, because if things go wrong there will be trouble afterwards.
I have been very much shocked by what I have heard the Solicitor-General say this afternoon. I came to the House as a friend of the Bill. I did not come to do anything other than help, but really I think the matter of delay is frightfully serious. I really do. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will look at the Order Paper he will see that there is a Motion down for tonight in my name about this particular point of having the matter considered by the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee. The time of laying has not been put in our terms of reference and we think it ought to be. The phrase "as soon as may be" I have always taken to mean "as quickly as possible." Now we know—and I think I am not being unfair—that it probably means six months. There is no obligation on the Departments to lay their Statutory Instruments before this House. That being the position, the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee which has to deal with all these things which come before the House, does not deal with them until they are laid. Is this a back door way of getting behind the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee? It is that which shocks me.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: One reason is to provide for the fact that the House might be up for Recesses for several months.

Sir C. MacAndrew: That has nothing to do with it and I cannot really accept that from the hon. Gentleman. These things are not laid when the House is up, and that is no answer. I would like to know what is behind what is being

done now. It is a very extraordinary business. On the Committee we have had experience of delay. There were the Fire Orders, as hon. Gentlemen will remember, and the result of that was that it did not matter, it was a mistake and we got a very ample apology from the right hon. Gentleman, and, of course, accepted it. But only this year Ploughing Grant Regulations, which were made on 31st January, were not laid until 6th March. We had the Department up before us, as we are entitled to do, and instead of rather thinking that they had made a mistake we were told that it was the normal practice, and we were so worried that we put in a special report on that matter. Some of the Departments are very lax about this matter and I think, from what we hear today, they are to be allowed to do just what they like. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about sanctions and putting Ministers into prison. They do not need to be put into prison; we can deal with them here. If they are to be allowed to make orders and not lay them, we shall not know anything about them for perhaps six months, and that is a matter which we cannot tolerate. If the question of the words "as soon as may be" is to be treated in that way, it is very wrong. There is no reason why the laying of Regulations should not be as automatic as the printing of them. I defy any hon. Member to get up in this House and give any reason, and we are not standing for it. That is the position and no one can give any reason for this delay.
This is not a debating point. I have in my hands the current issue of the list of Orders laid, which comes out every Saturday. We came back after the Recess on 9th October, and I see at the top of page 5 particulars of Orders laid on 9th October, and on page 6 other Orders laid on 9th October. The Financial Secretary must realise that that is the day upon which they should have been laid, the day when we came back. On page 8, nearly all were laid on 9th October, but what happens when we come to Water Regulations? They are dated 29th September and were laid on 16th October. Why in the world were not these laid on 9th October? Who can answer that question? On page 9 the Narrow Fabrics (Maximum Prices) Order, which was dated 25th September, was not laid until 17th October. The Education (Scotland)


Amending Scheme, dated 24th September, was laid on 23rd October. There is no earthly reason why the phrase "as soon as may be" should not be taken out and a seven days' limit put in. I hope we shall get some sort of promise that that will be done. The Departments are now to be given more latitude than ever before. It is taking power away from the House of Commons. I have been long enough in the House of Commons to support the House of Commons against the Departments in regard to this sort of thing. We asked for a new rules publication Act and we have got something for which we asked, but I do not think that what has been done is fair, and unless the learned Solicitor-General can give a guarantee that the laying business is to be treated fairly, I shall be very much against the Bill and must vote against the Second Reading.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I think it can be said without arrogance that the substantial questions involved in this matter are really few and comparatively simple, although what might be called the adjective parts of it, the parts necessary for understanding the main questions, are extremely technical and complicated. I would not take upon myself to instruct this House, and especially its technically learned Members, upon that side of it. For this reason, for the reason of what seems to me to be the simplicity of the main matters concerned and the complexity of the adjective matters, I think one might allow oneself a little more than the normal licence by way of repetition. I hope I shall not repeat arguments already used but I may be forgiven if I re-emphasise what seemed to me, and I think to most people on this side of the House, the main points concerned.
Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word from the party point of view. There seemed to be a little inclination on the part of a speaker opposite to suppose that those of us who are interested about this, are taking an interrogative line, are doing so because we are in Opposition. That would not be an improper Parliamentary reason, even if it were true, but it is not the fact, and hon. Members, if they had been here a little longer, would know, that it is not the fact. We were just as anxious, and far more tiresome about it, when Governments were of a different

party complexion. There is nothing partisan in our excitement about the matter. What are the two branches which seem to us exciting? It is only necessary to state them clearly to prove our case to anybody with an ordinary English education—or Scottish for that matter. The first is that a man ought not to be convicted, or in a civil case lose what would otherwise have been his right or advantage, because he did something which, at the time he did it, he could not possibly have known to be against the law.
The argument was put much better than I could put it by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke first from this side, but I should like to ask one or two questions. One is, What is the effect of the law as it stands? Can that be explained to us by somebody authoritative from the other side? I have been a perpetual student of the Inner Temple for some 30 years, but I have never passed the ''final" so I have probably misunderstood. I see in the report of cases in the King's Bench Division, V.1, 1918, on page 103, a judgment by Mr. Justice Bailache arising out of one of the statutory instruments which we know so well. It is the case of Johnson v. Sargeant and Mr. Justice Bailache held that Johnson or Sargeant—I have forgotten which—could not have known about the Order which had only been made that morning and therefore judgment could not be given on the ground that something unknowable had been transgressed against.

Mr. Mitchison: The previous morning. That is the whole point of the case. The Order was made on the 16th and was not known until 17th May.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not believe really that this question can properly be dealt with by interruption, though perhaps it could if we were all highly expert lawyers. At any rate I cannot deal with it by way of interruption. That is the first point I want to make. What is the law now? When we say we want this Bill to make it clear that Orders are not to have effect, either in criminal or commercial cases, before they can be known, the first question I put, is: Are we really asking for the law to be made clear, or are we asking for a change of the law? That is an important question and I should like to have it authoritatively


answered. With regard to the words "as soon as may be" about which we have had some discussion, I think the learned Solicitor-General, I am sure quite innocently, misled us and rather gave the impression that the words are the same as those in the Rules of Publication. He will remember that there the word is "forthwith." It is not a very good word but rather better than "as soon as may be." I should like to know whether we can have an assurance that instead of "as soon as may be" in future we are to have "X days" in Clauses 2, 3 and so on.
I should like to say a word about the learned Solicitor-General's point about proving the validity of these instruments in cases up and down the country. I speak subject to correction, but there can surely be no difficulty in doing what was done under the American Act in this connection. The Americans did not have, before the war, so much delegated legislation as we had, and they found themselves getting into a most awful mess in the middle of the war. Under war enactments, they were doing things by delegated legislation and had not been in the habit of doing them and, therefore, had not evolved the routine machinery that we had got. They found themselves in a mess, and had to clear it up and they passed a statute. I should like to ask the learned Solicitor-General whether that statute has been examined, and whether it might not, in some respect, be used to amend the Bill now before us, and in particular whether his difficulty about proving these documents in the courts, county courts and police courts and so on, is not met by the words:
the publication in the Federal Register of any document shall be a but table presumption that it was duly issued, presented or promulgated.
That is the provision in the American law and I would ask whether there is any difficulty in making that provision in our own law?
That seems to me to be one main question. The other main question, as has been generally agreed, is how to make sure that, if the House fails—and it has often failed—in its manifest duty of supervising and controlling delegated legislation, it is the House's own fault. There, again, we come back to "as soon as may be." Is there any reason why there

should not be a simple rule that every instrument of delegated legislation must be laid before the House within x days of its being made or on the day it is made? I have heard a great many suggestions in private conversation, and a great many arguments, against that, and all the arguments have been arguments of administrative convenience. As far as I could judge, they have been arguments which ought to be met by special ad hoc Bills for these cases or by special Schedules to Bills, and, if there is really any argument which has not been thought of in private conversation, or mentioned in the writings of Press commentators before now, it certainly was not put before us by the Solicitor-General today.
I feel bound to end up, as my predecessors on this side have done, by saying that, unless we can have assurances on these two points, I feel convinced that the House ought not to let this Measure pass its Second Reading. It is quite true that, in general, a man is wise, when hungry, to take half a loaf if not offered a whole one. But there has been so much talk, complaint and argument about this subject in the last five or six years that it has become absolutely essential to pass a new principal Act. If this becomes the new principal Act, if we are to judge by past history, it will be the principal Act for 52 years, more or less. I commend to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who may feel that this is not a matter which they need bother to look into more than to say "I am on this side," the consideration whether we ought, in a matter of this immense and unforeseeable importance, to give to any Government this power, because we think the suggested limitations better than nothing. I think that that argument is hardly relevant and certainly should not be accepted.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: As has already been indicated by the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), who has just spoken, and as I understand it, the law at present is that no Statutory Order is operative until it is known to the public, and, therefore, an Order conceived and signed within the four walls of a Ministry is not in operation. I believe that, in the one case on the subject to which the Senior Burgess referred, under which an Order was made on one day and published in the newspapers on the following day, the decision


in the courts was simply that that Order was operative on the day it was published, and not on the day when it was made. If that is so, and I believe there has been no other decision, then the apprehension of hon. Members on both sides of the House that their fellow citizens will be convicted for breach of some Orders or Regulations, about which neither they nor anyone but those inside a Ministry know anything, must be ill-founded.

Mr. Pickthorn: If the hon. Member will allow me, perhaps I may remind him of a case which I remember vaguely—the case of the Cornish daffodils. If my recollection is right, I think the man was actually convicted, although he could not possibly have known, when he got into the train at the other end with a suitcase full of daffodils, that it was against the law.

Mr. Mitchison: I am afraid I cannot remember the Cornish daffodils, but I can assure the Senior Burgess that the case to which he referred is commonly cited as the one authority on that proposition. Representations have been made by a non-county borough corporation in my own constituency, and I believe that there have been other representations by other municipalities, that the repeal of the Section of the Rules Publication Act, providing for 40 days' prior publication, is not altogether advantageous. It is true that, in a very large number of Acts, the Rules Publication Act has been specially excluded, but, none the less, it has, of course, been included in the majority of Acts published since then; and that Section is the most material part of it, from the point of view of local authorities. The reason is that the local authorities may not only obtain copies of Rules or Orders, or, as they are now called statutory instruments, but they also have the special right under the Rules Publication Act of making representations to the Government or the Department concerned, which is bound to take those representations into consideration.
It is perfectly true that, when there is a question of consulting trade interests or the like, it may be possible to do so for all reasonable purposes, but, when it comes to consulting local authorities, it is surely stressing that principle rather too far to say that consultation with their association is sufficient, instead of consultation on particular points with some

local authority or another which may be concerned, not because it is a corporation, but because it is a corporation in some particular place and faced with some particular problems. That is to say, that, though it may be sufficient to consult these associations on matters affecting corporations generally, yet, there are bound to be, particularly under these statutory instruments, matters of a nature which will affect a single corporation or group of corporations in such a way that, in those matters, they cannot be represented by their association.
The view which they accordingly take, and which, I now suggest to the Solicitor-General, merits some consideration, is that, so far as they are concerned, there might be qualifications to the repeal of that Section of the 1893 Act. I would not venture to go into details about the qualifications that might be made, but I should have thought it might be possible to provide, in Acts affecting local authorities, either that the Orders might be published or circulated to the authorities, and some opportunity given for the right of representation on their side and consideration by the Minister, which seems to them to be of particular importance in this type of matter. I propose to say no more about the rest of the Bill, which has some remarkable features. It may be that the Statutory Rules and Orders, now rechristened statutory instruments, have had their scope enlarged, and it is perfectly obvious that the number of these statutory instruments to be issued on the present legislative programme is not likely to decrease. It is equally obvious that the local authorities will be the chosen instruments for many of them, and it is because they are to be the chosen instruments that they would like to have something to say on the statutory instruments before they are published.

5.41 p.m.

Brigadier Low: I apologise, with great humility, for intervening after so many speakers have put so clearly the two main points of this Bill, but the whole subject of delegated legislation is of the first importance, not only to this House, but to all the people of this country at the present time. It was suggested, I think, from the benches opposite that it is odd that we, on this side, should now be making such a fuss on this matter so long after 1893 and so long after the Donoughmore Report, but


never before has delegated legislation in peace time been of such importance, and it is for that reason that I believe that all hon. Members of this House, on whichever side they sit, should ponder the reasons for this Bill, and particularly so today.
As the sphere of influence, if I may use that expression, of delegated legislation enlarges itself, so, to my mind, becomes more important the duty that all hon. Members of this House have of inquiring into and watching over the exercise of the powers which it has given to the Executive, and it would seem odd that anybody should deny it.
At this present time, the subject of delegated legislation involves a number of interests very closely. Further it involves the efficiency of the Executive and the efficiency of administrative machinery of all types, including the police courts. The Solicitor-General addressed himself to that matter, and we may be quite certain that the Government will look after the efficiency of the Executive. But it also involves the interests of organised bodies, whether trade unions or municipal corporations or bodies such as the Chamber of Shipping and the various chambers of commerce. As a matter of habit, the Government have always taken unto themselves to consult these bodies in recent years and long may they continue to do so. It has been suggested from the Benches behind me that a Clause should be inserted into this Bill that consultation should be compulsory. I have limited experience of legislation, but I should have thought that that is a matter to which the House could address itself as it comes to consider each Bill, and that that general Clause in this Bill would be wrong; it is irrelevant to the subject of this Bill.
But the two main interests involved are, first, the interest of Parliament in controlling the Executive in its Parliamentary procedure, and the second, and more important, the interest of Parliament in watching over the interests of the private people. In making his very clear statement at the beginning of this Debate, it seemed to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General entirely omitted any reference to the interests of the private individual. Let me take that point first, because it is the point which has been taken first

throughout in this Debate, and can be summed up as the necessity that publicity be given to these Orders before they are valid. I have been in some doubt, as I believe have all my learned friends on both sides of the House, as to the state of the law at the present time. There is this case to which the Senior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) referred, and there is also the case which I knew had to do with flowers, though I did not know they were daffodils. However, whatever view may be taken of those two cases, it is quite clear that there is some uncertainty about the law, and I would ask whoever sums up to give us some authoritative view upon the law. If there is any authoritative view, or if there is not, surely it is the duty of this House, at this time, to clarify a point of considerable uncertainty and of considerable importance. It is surely unnecessary that there should be another case in the courts to try this after we have had an opportunity here of discussing the matter and making up our minds.
The second point is that of Parliamentary procedure, and I dare to say a few words on that. It seems to me quite extraordinary that there should be any difficulty in a compulsory rule that all Government Departments should lay the Orders which they make immediately they are made. If they can be sent to the King's Printer, surely they can also be sent to this House. I know there are difficulties at the present time, and that Orders cannot be laid when the House is not sitting, but it seems to me not impossible to draft a Clause which will definitely enact that no statutory instrument could be valid unless it had been laid on the first day after it has been made on which the House is sitting. It may be, if it is impossible to get over the rule that it cannot be laid while the House is not sitting, that that Clause would have to be put in a negative way—that the Order will be annulled if it is not laid in time—but I see no difficulty such as the hon. and learned Solicitor-General mentioned, in proving whether the Order was void or valid. Equally, to revert to the first point, I see no difficulty in having a definite rule that no statutory instrument should have any validity at all until it has been published, and published in such a form that the private individual can read and understand it.
Those are the two safeguards which I believe all hon. Members owe it, as a duty to the people who elected them, to watch over. As the right hon. Lady who is now Minister of Education said in her annexe to the Donoughmore report:
Nothing is so dangerous in a democracy as a safeguard which appears to be adequate but is really a façade.
It would appear to me that this Bill is really making rather a façade of two of the most important safeguards which this House has against wrongful, perhaps mistakenly wrongful, use of powers it gives, to the Executive.
Those are the two points which have been made more clearly by other speakers than I can make them, but I would ask the House to think very carefully before giving this Bill a Second Reading unless the Government give us some assurance that, in its final form, the Bill will cater for the views which have been expressed.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: I feel that we are not this evening debating the question of the desirability or otherwise of delegated legislation; that, I feel certain, is forced upon us by the fact that it takes such a very long time to get legislation through this House by ordinary procedure. The two points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) at the commencement of this Debate were antecedent publicity and punishment of a Minister who failed in laying the Orders before the House. As far as the antecedent publicity is concerned, I have received a communication from the borough council of Swinton and Pendlebury, asking me to impress upon the Government the necessity for keeping in being the present methods of publicity, or by substituting some other form which would be satisfactory to the general public. I am very much impressed—and I am saying that because I feel it ought to be said from this side of the House just as much as from the other side—that we are concerned this evening with safeguarding the democratic rights.
While we recognise the necessity for delegated legislation, we must have safeguards placed in it in this House as far as is possible. I think the Government have accomplished the safeguarding of the rights of hon. Members of the House of Commons fairly well in this Bill, but I

feel that the ordinary citizen outside this House has the right to the fullest possible protection we can give him, and the only way in which the ordinary citizen can get knowledge of the legislation proposed by the government of the day is to have it published in a form which he can easily acquire. I suggest to the learned Solicitor-General that he should give consideration to this point, and should submit to the House proposals that will be better than the ones he has in the Bill. The only valid objection he seemed to make in his opening speech to my mind was the objection to the period of 40 days' delay. There seems to me to be nothing sacrosanct about that period and he might provide for a lesser period than 40 days and still provide the necessary publication. I would impress upon the Government the necessity for taking that view. I would also point out that there is a very general interest throughout the country in this matter. In the realms of education we had the other evening a very long Debate upon, a matter which I think directly related to these Orders. We had a Prayer the other evening on a matter which comes definitely within these Orders.
I want to point out that the substitute for publicity as put forward by the learned Solicitor-General was consultation with the interests concerned. Now I object to that method. I object to it very solidly on one ground, and that is the very great difficulty of carrying it out. If you bring in all the questions that arise in education and the Minister has to consult, of necessity, with all the varied interests that would come in on that point, he will have a very busy time, and I am afraid that instead of hastening things, it would delay them. Therefore it would be much better for him to have the clear-cut responsibility of publishing his proposals to the whole of the country rather than to have to the legal necessity—which it is suggested from the other side should be put actually in the legislation—of consulting the various interests, which it would be very difficult to define. I hope the Minister will give us some suggestion that at a later date he will be able to improve this Bill.

5.56 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: This Bill appeared in print only on 30th October, exactly a week ago, and that has not given us very much opportunity of discussing its provisions with interested


parties. I know that many of the local authorities regard its provisions with some apprehension. It is therefore really most important that all hon. Members should have ample opportunity of discussing the matter with all interested parties, and with one another, before the Committee stage is reached. I hope, therefore, that there will be a long interval before we embark upon the Committee stage, and that it will be taken upon the floor of the House, so that all hon. Members will have an opportunity to participate in it after consulting local authorities and others in their constituencies who are interested.
The House listened with great interest to the very careful explanation of the Bill given by the Solicitor-General. It took him a long time. Icertainly make no complaint of that; indeed, I feel grateful to him for the lucid way in which he explained its provisions, but I think that when we realised the great complications of this Bill, many of us felt that it should have been accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which would have made our task of understanding it perhaps easier.
The local authorities are seriously affected by this Bill because of its repeal of the Rules Publication Act of 1893 and their being thereby deprived of the antecedent publication of draft rules. In a circular letter which I received, and which I expect a number of other hon. Members, if not all, have also received through local authorities in their constituencies, the Association of Municipal Corporations expresses itself in this way:
It is suggested that the following principles should be borne in mind whenever new laws are made, whether by Parliament or by any subordinate authority. Before the law is made, all persons likely to be affected should have full opportunity of being acquainted with the proposal, of making representations to the law-making authority, and of having those representations considered.
I think we ought all to be able to subscribe to what the Association of Municipal Corporations says in that passage; certainly I do. The learned Solicitor-General said that in his view it was undesirable to continue the provisions of the Rules Publication Act with regard to antecedent publication. First of all, he gave a number of particular objections to the Section in question. It seemed to me that all those objections could easily be met by amendment, but the main ground upon

which he argued that it was unnecessary to retain provision for antecedent publication was that in practice all Ministries always had ample discussion of proposed rules with all the interests concerned. That is all very well, but I think local authorities and others would prefer not to rely entirely upon voluntary discussion of that order, but would like to have some unqualified right such as, or similar to, that provided for in the Rules Publication Act, some unqualified right of being warned in advance, and of being able to make representations to the Ministry concerned. I see no difficulty at all about embodying a provision of that kind in this Bill, and I hope some such step will be taken in the course of the Committee Stage.
There is one very grave matter which this Bill does not touch and which, with regard to delegated legislation, I think should be tackled. I mean the provision of a periodic Parliamentary review of existing Statutory Orders. We in this House may or may not have ample opportunity—it all depends—of considering Orders when they are made, and praying against them, but once the Orders have been made we never have any chance of reviewing them in this House. I think we should be far less fastidious about agreeing to the making of Orders if we knew we were to have a chance of reviewing them again in the light of subsequent experience. If the Government were prepared to provide opportunity for a review of the character they would find it very much easier to get their rules and regulations accepted by the House, and we should all feel that Parliament had much more adequate control over delegated powers.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It seems to me that both sides of the House are making rather unnecessarily heavy weather over what is really a simple and agreed non-controversial Measure. When my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was presenting it to the House he said in effect that it was a bequest from the last Government. It is quite clear from the course of the Debate that the principle of the Measure is agreed to be necessary. Indeed it amounts to little more than a tidying up and regularising of the process of delegated legislation, which everybody has been clamouring for all the time I have been in the House. It is true that two


points of principle have been raised, and I want to say, quite frankly, that I agree with the criticism of the Bill on those two points for reasons which I do not need to repeat at length but which I will indicate in a moment. What amazes me now is that on a Bill of this kind hon. Members opposite should think it right to talk about voting against the Second Reading, or denying, the Government the Bill, unless they get an undertaking now on those two points which can quite easily be remedied in Committee, if they are to be remedied. I suppose the reason is to be sought in the Sunday newspapers. They have been criticising—

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Which paper?

Mr. Silverman: Well, "Reynolds" has been treating the Opposition kindly; I was thinking of "The Sunday Times" and "The Observer", both of which have been criticising the Opposition for the weakness, ineffectiveness and indeterminateness of their position. They accuse them of floundering, of not knowing whether they want to oppose or not, of sparring round for opportunities of opposing, and they appeal to them considerably to strengthen their attack. I can only suppose that the ferociousness of hon. Members opposite today is to be attributed to an endeavour to placate the editors of those papers, unless they have been receiving similar criticism from their supporters, or those who are left, in the country generally. I do not understand why on a Bill which, it has been agreed, is non-controversial—[An Hon. Member: "Oh."] The hon. Member says "Oh," and I do not know what he means by that, unless it is that he dissents. I hazard the guess that this Bill is not really very different from the one which hon. Members opposite would have passed, if they had been on this side of the House. I do not know whether it has been altered, but if it has I do not think it has been altered very much from the Bill which was prepared by the last Government. Why, in those circumstances, they should take two easily remediable points, and treat them as a means of opposing a Bill which they have clamoured for for years, is something I cannot understand.
Nevertheless, I hope the Solicitor-General will consider the two points seriously. I do not know whether he can

say anything now, but even if he cannot, I shall vote for the Second Reading, while reserving my right to act in Committee according to the view I have expressed here, unless I see any reason to change it—and so far I have not. I do not believe that it can be right, in this country, to make a man answerable in the criminal courts for an offence which he did not know, and cannot know, he had ever committed. I think that is a sound principle, and I think that we on this side of the House are at least as much interested in it as anybody else. I have heard it said that it is now the law, according to a decision of the Court of Appeal, that the date on which such a statutory instrument becomes valid is the day of its publication, and not the day on which it was made. I do not know, but if that is the law now, I can see no reason why the Government should resist it, because it would be making no change. If that is not the correct view, then it is a change that ought to be made.
I remember the case of a friend of mine in Liverpool, a much respected trader, who was convicted of an offence against a regulation which had never been published, and which, in fact, had been repealed before the date of his trial. That regulation was in existence for only three or four days, and during that time the Department which promulgated it decided that it was no good and so it was never published. But my friend was in the courts for acting contrary to that regulation during those three or four days. Everybody else in Liverpool was much amused, but it is not a matter for humour. If we can protect citizens against this sort of thing I hope we shall take steps to do so. As to whether such a statutory instrument ought to be deemed to be valid when the Parliamentary stage in making it valid has been omitted, I should have thought that there was no room for serious doubt what was the right course. You might just as well leave out the Committee stage, or the Report stage, or the Third Reading.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If by any possible chance that did happen, and an Act was printed and appeared to be valid on the face of it, it would be law whether or not, through some technical fault, the Committee stage or the Third Reading had been omitted.

Mr. Silverman: I assume that is so. It can only mean that, in that event, the House of Commons has a privilege which Ministers of Departments have not up to now. In the analogous case of the National Fire Service Regulations everybody agreed that the failure to present them to this House within what anybody could have called a reasonable time—as soon as may be—was so definitely held to be invalidation of the whole statutory instrument that we passed a special Act of Parliament to validate what had been invalidatedly done. Everybody has regarded the omission of that stage in the case of a statutory instrument as invalid—

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has referred to a Debate which took place then. If he will look at that Debate again I think he will find that the Lord President of the Council adhered throughout to the view that failure to lay the regulations did not affect the validity of those regulations.

Mr. Silverman: I think something of the kind may have been said and, if the hon. Member says so, I am not prepared to dissent from it. But I think that view was held not with regard to the failure to present them, but the failure to present them within a period—according to the phrase, "as soon as may be"—and as nobody knew how soon that might be, it was always possible to hold that that condition had been complied with. But I still say that if they had never been presented, then the whole of the procedure was invalid. The legal advice which the Government had at that time must have been to that effect. I do not like that part of the Bill which says that if you do not do what the Legislature said you ought to do, in order to give validity to a piece of legislation which your Department is carrying out, then you have, nevertheless, properly enacted your legislation and you ought to have the benefit of it. It is all very well to say, "Supposing it is invalid, what inconvenience will there be?" If that induces Ministers in future to take greater care, so much the better. Steps that are taken in other parts of this Bill to prevent them from inadvertently slipping into that kind of error will, no doubt, prevent them from doing it. I think these points ought to be sustained by those on this side of the House who see the inevitable necessity of delegated legislation.
Hon. Members on the other side of the House know that we must have delegated legislation. It would be used by them for much more sinister purposes than any delegated legislation to which we are likely to commit ourselves. I think that we, on this side of the House, know that one of the principal instruments for effecting our purposes must be by means of delegated legislation; if ever we are to do the job, in a reasonable time, which we came here to do; and we ought to be especially careful to see that the means adopted to safeguard that legislation are conscientiously and scrupulously observed, so as not to bring the whole thing into public contempt, and so as not to give hon. Members opposite cheap weapons to add to their very depleted armoury. That is why I think it right that these things should be said from this side of the House, and right that the Government should take very great care in this matter. I propose to vote for the Second Reading, because I am sure that, in principle, it is right. I hope that these points can be looked at again before the Committee stage; and I think that, in the end, we shall get a piece of very valuable legislation.

6.17 p.m.

Major Conant: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) has expressed the view that this Bill is non-controversial; but I noticed that his speech was directed to criticising several of its provisions, and he concluded by saying that he intended to support the Second Reading.

Mr. Silverman: I think I said that I agree with everything in the Bill except the two points which I mentioned. I agree with everything else. I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who led for the Opposition takes exactly the same view.

Major Conant: I should have thought that the two points to which he referred were the most important in the Bill. Surely people should not be imprisoned for offences of which they know nothing. That is of extreme importance, especially to those who are imprisoned. I am sorry to find that the hon. Gentleman is supporting a Bill of which he cannot approve very much. I would like to add my protest to that of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) at the short space


of time allowed to us for consideration of this Bill, which the Solicitor-General has described as highly technical, and of very great importance. I regard it of tremendous importance to everyone who has the liberty of the individual at heart. Just as the old revolutionaries put liberty before equality, I think we must, in these days, put liberty before efficiency. To try to increase the output of legislation in order to seek greater administrative efficiency is going to make great inroads upon the liberties of private individuals, the man in the street.
We all recognise that, in this modern world, delegated legislation is necessary; and there probably will never be a time when Parliament can retain, in its own hands, the power to make all laws. It is essential, in my view, if we are to represent the man in the street, to preserve control, and full control, over those to whom we delegate our law-making powers. There are two ways in which we can do that. The first is publicity. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) when he suggests that these orders, rules, and regulations should not be operative until they are on sale to the public. I feel that is the first essential, if we are to retain a measure of control over those to whom we delegate our powers. I am not convinced at all by the suggestion of the Solicitor-General that the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee should not be carried out because the procedure by which publication precedes enforcement would not be worth retaining, as it is covered by prior consultation. Prior consultation, surely, is with associations, trade organisations, and not with the individual man in the street who is really going to be affected by the Orders made. These are the people whom it is our first duty to protect against the Executive.
As hon. Gentlemen said, unless this is done people will be convicted of offences of which they not only know nothing but of which they cannot possibly know anything. We can accept the doctrine that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but to convict people of offences which are only known within the confines of a Ministry is a far greater departure from liberty than I can accept. The purpose of our laws must be, I think, not to catch criminals, but to restrain people from taking a certain course of action which is regarded,

rightly or wrongly, as anti-social. If we desire to catch criminals, the quicker we can turn our laws, and the more secretive the Government are in doing so, the more criminals we shall catch. If we desire that laws shall be an effective restraint we must give them the maximum of publicity and the minimum of delegated legislation. The other consideration, to my mind, if we are to preserve what little remains of liberty for the individual, is, that the man in the street, through his representative in this House, should have an opportunity within a reasonable time to approve or reject the rules, orders and regulations that are made. I do not feel that in Clause 3 (3) that, in fact, is carried out.
I would ask the Solicitor-General whether orders would need to be laid for as long as 12 months, because the Treasury, at least twice in every year, shall make a return to Parliament. Is there any reason why the Treasury should not make its return on the 1st and 2nd of January, leaving a full 12 months for orders to accumulate which, in fact, have not been laid? Twice a year does not necessarily mean every six months. I can see no justification for that. In normal cases, I should say there can be no reason why an Order should not be laid on the next Sitting Day after publication. It is perfectly true, as the Solicitor-General said, that there may be cases of emergency, when emergency legislation is necessary; but they must be very rare, certainly in time of peace, and they should be dealt with as emergency legislation by special procedure. It is true that mistakes will be made, and occasionally Indemnity Bills will be necessary; but it would be wrong, I feel, that we should legislate on the assumption that mistakes will be made. The protection of the citizens' freedom is far more important than protection of Ministers against the mistakes of their subordinates.
One other point, I think, is of some special interest to hon. Members opposite. That is on the question of the amendment of these Regulations. One can assume that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree with the general principle of nearly all these rules and regulations. They approve the policy of the Government, and they will, therefore, approve, in principle, the regulations through which it is carried out, but it must be appreciated that they will never have an opportunity of doing more


than approve a principle. Many of these statutory instruments affect the lives of our citizens to a far greater extent than many Acts of Parliament; and it seems to me quite wrong that we should have the choice solely of accepting or rejecting in to to each of these Rules and Regulations.
One further point, in regard to what I would describe as subsidiary Orders. It happens, I believe, that a Minister can make Orders for the carrying out of some project, and the Order itself, giving him these powers, is laid before this House; but he may obtain through that Order further powers to make subsidiary Orders, which, in fact, are never brought before this House at all; and it seems to me that is an unjustified restriction on the right of the individual. Therefore, I have no hesitation in opposing this Bill, as I regard it as an unjustified restriction upon the right of the individual to lead his own life and as giving to the Executive powers, which, I believe, in time of peace are totally unnecessary.

26 p.m

Sir Harold Webbe: Three speakers in the later stages of this Debate—the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) and the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison)—have raised a point which had been, up to that stage, tacitly accepted. They have raised the question of the wisdom of the Government's decision not to re-enact the provisions of a present Statute in regard to prior publication, from the angle that such publication was desirable for local authorities. As one who has been interested in local government for many years, I believe the Government's decision to be right, and that prior publication no longer serves any really useful purpose. It is true that the hon. Member for Eccles objected to the failure to re-enact these provisions on the ground that prior consultation, which we all know is a custom of Government Departments, was, in itself, an undesirable thing. He wanted to have the Government's proposal put to the world, as he said, and left for open discussion after that stage. I am quite sure that anyone intimately concerned with local government is satisfied that prior consultations, which, in fact, do take place, save

a very great deal of time, a great deal of misunderstanding, and are the only practical method by which regulations and statutory instruments of that kind can be made in relation to local authorities. The hon. Member for Kettering took the diametrically opposite reason. He felt that there was insufficient prior consultation, and there was no guarantee that individual interests among local authorities would, in fact, have an opportunity of making their views known.
I think we should also keep in mind that one of the great difficulties of the whole method of government by delegated legislation is that when an Act of Parliament provides that certain steps in the administration shall be covered by regulations made by Ministers, it places on the Minister the virtually impossible task of drafting a regulation which is equally and properly applicable to every local authority in the country. It does frequently result that these regulations are either so loosely drawn in order to cover everything as to be virtually ineffective, or so tightly drawn as adversely to affect certain interests. On the whole, I feel sure that the Government are right that this prior publication no longer serves any really useful purpose. In regard to the Bill as a whole, I feel we are still in an unsatisfactory position which I very much hope the learned Solicitor-General will clear up when he replies. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). With his conclusions in regard to the two points of principle involved in this Bill I was in hearty agreement. I may say I could not quite understand the logic by which he arrived at those conclusions, still less did I understand how he proposed to vote for the Bill regardless of anything else when it contains on his submission points of substance which are diametrically opposed to the views which he holds. I do appeal to the learned Solicitor-General to give us some assurance that he will meet the practically unanimous wish of the House, on the two points of substance which have been raised by one speaker after another.
The Bill has certain very obvious merits. It widens and clarifies the definition of a "statutory instrument." It standardises the procedure, but it falls lamentably short in two respects. There is not very much use having a statutory


instrument which is to be made and laid for the period of 40 days, if you leave wide open the question of when that 40 days begins. As I listened to the learned Solicitor-General in his opening remarks I metaphorically rubbed my eyes to see if I was awake. He spent many minutes talking of the hopeless vagueness of the phrase "as soon as may be," and yet, as has been pointed out, it is the governing phrase in the two important Clauses of his Bill. Surely this is illogical, and every argument which the learned Solicitor-General used in support of the Bill is an argument for clarifying these two Clauses, and making a definite decision as to when the 40 days are to begin. I cannot believe that the Government Department themselves would not find it actually more convenient to have a precise procedure for laying Orders on the Table of this House, rather than the indefinite procedure which is now proposed. A precise procedure, in any business, is carried out, but an indefinite one is almost invariably broken from time to time, or forgotten, and there seems to be no reason why some formula should not be inserted in this Bill to ensure that when a Minister signs an Order, he should sign a duplicate of it, which could be laid on the Table of this House on the first Sitting Day after it is made. That would be automatic, and would not lapse in the way we know Orders under present procedure and the proposed procedure would lapse.
Another and equally vital point is one which has been made by practically every speaker from both sides of the House. The principle which governs British justice—one of the governing principles—is that ignorance of the law is no defence. It is incumbent on those who make the law, to ensure that those who are to obey it, know what that law is. There cannot be, in my submission, any answer to the argument that no instrument can be legal, or become effective until those affected by it have an opportunity of knowing what it says and what it means. Reference has been made by the hon. Member for Kettering to a case in which the courts decided that, whatever might be thought here, the fact was that an Order was not effective until it had been made public. We all remember well the daffodil case where men were arrested carrying suitcases full of daffodils and were actually prosecuted,

convicted and fined for an offence under an Order which had not been published to any one at all when they entered the train at Exeter.
I do not want to make any submission on the merits of the case; it may well be that by accident justice might have been done. But it is alarming that that kind of thing could happen in a country in which no man is allowed to plead ignorance of the law in his own defence. I do submit that the learned Solicitor-General, in view of the strength of the opinion expressed from all quarters of the House, should give us an undertaking that when this Bill comes before the Committee he will himself move Amendments, to secure first that there shall be some precision in the procedure for seeking approval of this House to these statutory instruments, and secondly to ensure that no man can be convicted of a crime which he could not possibly know was a crime. It is on those points that I would ask for an assurance and if we can have that asurasnce I, for one, will be happy to vote for the Second Reading. But without that assurance, because these are points of substance, I must agree that this is a bad Bill against which this House should vote.

6.39 p.m

Mr. Maude: I would endeavour to make one point which I did raise with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General by way of interruption and which he very kindly dealt with to some extent. I am doubly disappointed, in respect of this Bill, with the attitude taken by the Labour Party over it and for this reason. I cannot help feeling that the hurry with which the learned Solicitor-General introduced the Bill is the reason why the Bill still contains those odious words "as soon as may be" when in fact all of us in this House know perfectly well that it is not possible to have any kind of efficient legislation when those words remain in any Bill. Clause 2 begins:
As soon as may be after the making of any statutory instrument, it shall be sent to the King's Printer of Acts of Parliament.
I submit that those words are absolutely unnecessary; they are an encouragement to delay. But let me turn to Clause 3. It provides:
Where by this Act or any Act passed after the commencement of this Act any statutory instrument is required to be laid before Par-


liament, a copy of the instrument shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after the making thereof.
I know what the reason for this may be, since it could be argued that the House might not be sitting, but there is no reason at all why one should leave it to read "as soon as may be." One could easily insert words which would make it imperative that the Order should be laid within so many days after the House assembling. But while I am on this point let me say that Subsection (3) is to my mind quite wrong and should never be allowed to go forward. I will read it:
The validity of any statutory instrument of which copies are required under this Section to be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after the making thereof, shall not be called in question on the grounds that such copies were not so laid.
I do not complain about that but the Clause goes on:
But at least twice in every year the Treasury shall make a return to Parliament drawing attention to any such statutory instrument which during the period under review has come into operation on a date earlier than that on which copies thereof were laid before Parliament.
May I pause there? If the Treasury is omniscient and knows perfectly well all about these Orders—and I suppose would know immediately, if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is right in his argument, that the requirements of this House had not been complied with—I cannot conceive why a return could not be made earlier. I suspect that, if the learned Solicitor-General consults the Treasury, he will find that they have not got all this knowledge and do not know immediately. The House will notice that having said "at least twice in every year" there is no indication at all when that is to be, and therefore we do not know when the Treasury are to make a return to Parliament
explaining why such copies were not so laid on or before the date on which the ordinance came into operation.
It is my sincere belief that the whole matter could be tightened up as easily as anything. We should then get, in fact, the legislation that I believe many hon. Members have been longing for, really first-class, excellent legislation. Instead of that, what the House will be doing is to hand over to the Executive, not a thing of which they are frightened in any shape or form, but handing over to

the Executive an Act which enables them in fact not to get on with these matters as quickly and efficiently as every one of us would wish. There may be some good reason for it, but I confess I do not know what it is. All of us have had experience with Government Departments during this war and I believe every one of us here knows perfectly well that we should in fact have taken more effective steps on both sides of the House, if we had had longer time to consider the proposals in this Bill. Until some assurance is given by the hon. and learned Solicitor-General I feel I must vote against it. It is not a party matter. There are excellent things in it. A lot of it is excellent, but I do say that it is one's bounden duty to vote against a Bill which should be a first-rate Bill, instead of being, in my submission, a thoroughly bad one.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Manninghann-Buller: I have not had the advantage of introducing a Bill but I suppose that when one does one endeavours to disarm criticism in advance. If these were the intentions of the learned Solicitor-General in introducing this Bill, I must confess that I think it unfortunate that, in his lengthy and lucid exposition, he dealt so shortly with the three chief points which have kept us so long in the Debate today. If he had dealt with those points, it may be that the Debate would never have lasted so long. I do sympathise with him because if he had had, throughout this Debate, the assistance of a Cabinet Minister beside him or of any other Minister who could have authorised him to give some assurance, or to give some concession, we might have got through this matter much more speedily. I do not of course know what his attitude will be when he comes, if he comes, to reply. It is obvious, I think, that the particular points in this Bill to which attention was drawn by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) have met with support not only from these Benches but from the Benches opposite. I do not think the Government have found one supporter amid the serried ranks of the empty Benches behind them.
What are the three points under consideration? First, there is the question whether some notification should not be given of the making of regulations on the lines of the recommendations of the


Donoughmore Report and which the Solicitor-General has said have been discarded in this Bill. I agree that it is not always possible to give notice in advance of the regulations that are to be made but where it can be done it should be. Either some preliminary announcement can be made or it can be prescribed that the regulations will come into effect on a specific date as was done in the case of the Regulations imposing a £10 restriction on building without a licence, thus enabling people to consider the regulations before they became operative. It does enable people to know the law before the law starts being applied. I hope that even though it may not be possible to put some such provision in the Bill, we shall receive some assurance that when it can be done, advance notice of the regulations shall be given. That point was made, not only from this side of the House, but also by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The second point is one which, although the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman)—who I am sorry to see is not here now—thinks it is merely a Committee point, is one of considerable substance, and affects every man and woman in this land. It is whether an order can be made and become law before anyone can know what it is. We have had considerable arguments about what is the law now, before this Bill becomes an Act. The Senior Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) referred to a reported case with which the hon. Member for Kettering showed he was acquainted. However the law may be now, the question will still arise whether this Bill, if it is passed in its present form, will affect that law. When one sees in Clause 2 the words:
As soon as may be after the making of any statutory instrument it shall be sent to the King's Printer….
I should have thought that implied that an Order was made before it got to the King's Printer, and so was in operation before anyone could receive it. I hope that notwithstanding the absence of his colleagues, the Solicitor-General will be able to give some assurance that that matter will be put right before this Debate is concluded.
The third and equally important point, in my view, is in regard to Clause 3. I am sure that all Members of this House will agree it is far better to prevent the

commission of crimes than to set oneself to detecting criminals. If the Government wish to abolish the shortage of criminals it is quite easy, by creating offences by making regulations and orders of this sort. But when these regulations are made, there must surely be provision for there being some check upon them. In the majority of cases it is no longer open to the courts to inquire into the exercise of the Minister's powers. The only authority is, and has been for some time, this House of Commons. Therefore, it is of the most fundamental importance that we should ensure that all exercise of delegated authority must come before the House. This Bill does not achieve that object at all. As I understand the Bill, it will still be possible for Fire Guard regulations to be made in a future war, and not be laid for three years after they are made, and there is no sanction, no precaution against that. The Treasury might make reports but what can be done then. The Minister, the Government, the Executive cannot be compelled even then to lay the regulations. No one can pray against regulations until they are laid, and there is no sanction in this Bill to compel the laying of these reports, even if the Treasury gives an adverse report upon them.
What is the remedy? Surely the one suggested, that there must be some sanction in this Bill, something to say that if this Parliament has decided in its Acts, that is to say, that the regulations shall be laid, and if Parliament is flouted by that not being obeyed, the regulations shall cease to be valid. What is the objection to that? The learned Solicitor-General, when he raised that point, said it could not be done. The only reason he gave was the difficulty of proof in the police court. I suggest that that reason does not justify our relinquishing control over delegated legislation. That is what he is asking us to do. Because of the difficulty of proving that the regulation has been laid, he is asking this House to dispense with all control over the exercise of that power of legislation which we have delegated. There are many ways in which that difficulty of proof can be overcome. I do not propose to take up time in entering into it now, but it is a most unsatisfactory reason for saying that we cannot provide that if a thing is not laid it shall cease to be valid. That is the only sanction which can be operative and


can ensure that regulations, when they are made, shall come before this House, and that we, no matter to what party we may belong, shall have an opportunity of checking them.
The Lord President of the Council, in one of those speeches he used to make at weekends when he was Home Secretary in the Coalition Government, talked a great deal about this delegated legislation, and he emphasised the fact that Parliament will exercise powers of supervision and control of this Departmental legislation. My criticism of this Bill is that it does not provide any more power of control over the exercise of delegated legislation than exists today, no real power at all. Indeed, as I have said, we may still have other Members of the Government coming here, clad in a white sheet, asking for a Bill of indemnity on the ground that the words "as soon as may be" have not been interpreted as meaning "as soon as can be." I hope we shall receive the assurance that both these matters will be remedied at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne quoted, or sought to quote, the effect of certain articles in newspapers, and he talked about floundering. I think he himself rather floundered in his approach to this Bill. He seemed to regard these two matters as mere Committee points. I think they go far deeper than that. I can tell the Solicitor-General that unless he can say that these points will be met he will not get this Bill without those of us who can doing all we can to obstruct him.

The Solicitor-General: The Solicitor-General rose—

Major Guy Lloyd (Renfrew, East): On a point of Order. I gather that the hon. and learned Gentleman is to speak a second time. I want to ask your guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Front Bench has been boycotted by departmental Ministers who are vitally

affected by this most important Bill. I object to the Solicitor-General speaking again.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I thought the hon. and gallant Member was putting a point of Order. I was waiting to hear what it was.

Major Lloyd: I am asking for your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The last time such a position arose the present Minister of Health made an exactly similar protest, under exactly similar conditions, and he said that the next time it happened he would be the first to raise a protest on a point of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not accepted the contention that this is a point of Order.

Major Lloyd: On a point of Order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Will you accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would certainly not accept that Motion.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order. Is the House entitled to refuse the hon. and learned Gentleman the right to speak a second time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House is, of course, entitled to do that, and the hon. and learned Member will ask the permission of the House before he speaks.

The Solicitor-General: I was about to rise to ask that permission. I now formally ask the permission of the House to speak again.

Major Lloyd: I object.

Mr. Molson: Why is it necessary for the hon. and learned Member to speak on a second occasion, since he has many colleagues on the Treasury Bench?

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 134.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[6.56 p.m.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Baird, Capt. J.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.


Allen, A. C. (Botworth)
Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Boardman, H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Barstow, P. G.
Bottomley, A. G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barton, C.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)


Attewell, H. C.
Battley, J. R.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)


Austin, H. L.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Awbery, S. S.
Belcher, J. W.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Ayles, W. H.
Berry, H.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Brown, George (Belper)


Bacon, Miss A.
Blackburn, A. R.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)




Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Reeves, J.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Burden, T. W.
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Rhodes, H.


Burke, W. A.
Keenan, W.
Richards, R.


Callaghan, James
Kenyon, C.
Robens, A.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Key, C. W.
Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)


Champion, A. J.
Kinley, J.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Chater, D.
Kirby, B. V.
Sargood, R.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Lang, G.
Scollan, T.


Clitherow, R.
Lavers, S.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Cobb, F. A.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)


Cocks, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Coldrick, W.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Collick, P.
Levy, B. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Collindridge, F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Simmons, C. J.


Collins, V. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Lindgren, G. S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Cook, T. F.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Cooper, Wing Comdr. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Longden, F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Corvedale, Viscount
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
McAdam, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Mack, J. D.
Solley, L. J.


Daggar, G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Daines, P.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McKinlay, A. S.
Stamford, W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Steele, T.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McLeavy, F.
Strachey, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K.
Strauss, G. R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Stubbs, A. E.


Diamond, J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Sunderland, J. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Marquand, H. A.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Dye, S.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Medland, H. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Farthing, W. J.
Monslow, W.
Thorneycroft, H.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Montague, F.
Thurtle, E.


Follick, M.
Moody, A. S.
Timmons, J.


Foot, M. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tolley, L.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Morley, R.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Usborne, H. C.


Freeman, Mai. J. (Watford)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Freeman, P. (Newport)
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Moyle, A.
Walkden, E.


Gallacher, W.
Murray, J. D.
Walker, G. H.


Gibbins, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, C. D. (Chislehurst)


Gibson, C. W.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Gilzean, A.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Warbey, W. N.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Watkins, T. E.


Gordon-Walker, P. G.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Watson, W. M.


Grenfell, D. R.
Oliver, G. H.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Grey, C. F.
Orbach, M.
Weitzman, D.


Grierson, E.
Paget, B. T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Guy, W. H.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Perrins, W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Hewitson, Captain M.
Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)
Willis, E.


Hobson, C R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wise, Major F. J.


Holman, P.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Woodburn, A.


House, G.
Pritt, D. N.
Woods, G. S.


Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Yates, V. F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.



Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)
Ranger, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rankin, J.
Mr. Mathers and Captain Michael Stewart.







NOES.


Aitken, Hon. M.
Glossop, C. W. H.
Osborne, C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Barlow, Sir J.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Ponsonby, Col, C. E.


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boothby, R.
Horabin, T. L.
Raikes, H. V.


Bossom, A. G.
Howard, Hon. A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Lt-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)
Renton, Maj. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jennings, R.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. J. R.


Butcher, H. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Kendall, W. D.
Scott, Lord W.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Carson, E.
Lambert, G.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.


Cole, T. L.
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. M.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Cuthbert, W. N.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, R. H.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Vane, Lt.-Col. W. M. T.


Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
MacLeod, Capt. J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Duthie, W. S.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Eccles, D. M.
Maude, J. C.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)
York, C.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)



Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Nicholson, G.
Commander Agnew and Drewe.


Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, "That the Bill be com-

mitted to Committee of the Whole House."

The House divided: Ayes, 127; Noes,279.

Division No. 17.]
AYES.
[7.8 p.m.


Aitken, Hon. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hogg, Hon. Q.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Hope, Lt.-Col. Lord J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Howard, Hon A.


Barlow, Sir J.
Davidson, Viscountess
Hutchison, Lt.-Cdr. Clark (Edin'gh, W.)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Digby, Maj. S. Wingfield
Hutchison, Lt.-Col. J. R. (G'gow, C.)


Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Dodds-Parker, Col. A. D.
Jennings, R.


Bennett, Sir P.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Joynson-Hicks, Lt.-Cdr. Hon. L. W.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Duthie, W. S.
Lambert, G.


Boothby, R.
Eccles, D. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Bower, N.
Erroll, Col. F. J.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Lloyd, Brig. J. S. B. (Wirral)


Butcher, H. W.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Low, Brig. A. R. W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.


Carson, E.
Fraser, Lt.-Col. Sir I. (Lonsdale)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (I. of Wight)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Gammans, Capt. L. D.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Glossop, C. W. H.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Cole, T. L.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Maclean, Brig. F. H. R. (Lancaster)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hare, Lt.-Col. Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
MacLeod, Capt. J.


Cooper-Key, Maj. E. M.
Haughton, Maj. S. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Headlam, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, Capt. A. E.




Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Raikes, H. V.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Maude, J. C.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Touche, G. C.


Mellor, Sir J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Turton, R. H.


Molson, A. H. E.
Renton, Maj. D.
Vane, Lt.-Col. W M. T.


Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Robinson, Wing Comdr. J. R.
Walker-Smith, Lt.-Col. D.


Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Scott, Lord W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Nicholson, G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Wheatley, Lt.-Col. M. J.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Snadden, W. M.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Osborne, C.
Spearman, A. C. M.
White, Maj. J. B. (Canterbury)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Spence, Maj. H. R.
Williams, Lt.-Cdr. G. W. (T'nbr'ge)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fib, E.)
York, C.


Pickthorn, K.
Stoddart-Scott, Lt.-Col. M.
Young, Maj. Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.



Poole, Col. O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Studholme, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
Sutcliffe, H.
Commander Agnew and Mr. Drewe.


Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)



Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.





NOES.


Adams, Capt. H. R. (Balham)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lavers, S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Alpass, J. H.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Diamond, J.
Leonard, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Donovan, T.
Leslie, J. R.


Attewell, H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Levy, B. W.


Austin, H. L.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Awbery, S. S.
Dye, S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Ayles, W. H.
Edelman, M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lipson, D. L.


Baird, Capt. J.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Balfour, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ewart, R.
Longden, F.


Barstow, P. G.
Farthing, W. J.
Lyne, A. W.


Barton, C.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McAdam, W.


Battley, J. R.
Pollick, M.
Mack, J. D.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Foot, M. M.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Belcher, J. W.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Berry, H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Blackburn, A. R.
Freeman, P. (Newport)
McLeavy, F.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
MacMillan, M. K.


Blyton, W. R.
Gallacher, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Boardman, H.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gibbins, J.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, H. A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Gilzean, A.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mayhew, Maj. C. P.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gordon-Walker, P. G.
Medland, H. M.


Brown, George (Belper)
Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Grey, C. F.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Grierson, E.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Buchanan, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.


Burden, T. W.
Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
Montague, F.


Burke, W. A.
Gunter, Capt. R. J.
Moody, A. S.


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Guy, W. H.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Callaghan, James
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Morley, R.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Aberdare)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Champion, A. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Morris, R. H. (Carmarthen)


Clitherow, R.
Hewitson, Captain M.
Mort, D. L.


Cluse, W. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Moyle, A.


Cobb, F. A.
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.


Cocks, F. S.
Horabin, T. L.
Naylor, T. E.


Coldrick, W.
House, G.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Collick, P.
Hoy, J.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Collindridge, F.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lhampton, W.)
Oliver, G. H.


Cook, T. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Paget, R. T.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Corvedale, Viscount
Jones, Maj. P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Cove, W. G.
Keenan, W.
Pargiter, G. A.


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A.
Kendall, W. D.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kenyon, C.
Paten, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Daggar, G.
Key, C. W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Daines, P.
King, E. M.
Pearson, A.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kinley, J.
Peart, Capt. T. F.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Perrins, W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lang, G.
Poole, Major C. C. (Lichfield)







Porter, E. (Warrington)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Walker, G. H.


Porter G. (Leeds)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Proctor, W. T.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Solley, L. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Randall, H. E.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Watkins, T. E.


Ranger, J.
Sparks, J. A.
Watson, W. M.


Rankin, J.
Stamford, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Steele, T.
Weitzman, D.


Reeves, J.
Strachey, J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Strauss, G. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Rhodes, H.
Stross, Dr. B.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Richards, R.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wigg, G. E. C.


Roberts, A.
Sunderland, J. W.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Roberts, G. O. (Caernarvonshire)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen


Sargood, R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Scollan, T.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Scott-Elliot, W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. E. J. (Ogmore)


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Shawcross, Cmdr. C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willis, E.


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Thorneycroft, H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thurtle, E.
Woodburn, A.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Timmons, J.
Woods, G. S.


Simmons, C. J.
Tolley, L.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Skeffington, A. M.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Yates, V. F.


Skinnard, F. W.
Usborne, H. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.



Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Walkden, E.
Mr. Mathers and Captain Michael Stewart.


Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:

That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of Part I of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-six, and of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, and the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, being expenses which, under any of the four last-mentioned Acts are to be defrayed out of such moneys; and
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of such receipts as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, until the said thirty-first day of March being receipts which under that Act are to be paid into the Exchequer."

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[COLONEL SIR CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE

7.23 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I beg to move, in page 3, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The effect of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be to remove from the scope of the Bill an Act of Parliament in which I have a special interest. That Act is the 1944 Pensions (Increase) Act. I do not seek to remove this Act from the scope of the Bill because I want it to come to an end; I seek to remove it because under the Bill the House is confronted with one of two alternatives, neither of which it may like. If it votes for the Bill, it extends those Acts of Parliament mentioned in the Schedule without any kind of alteration. If it votes against the Bill, it will bring these Acts of Parliament, which would otherwise be extended, to an end. That choice may be perfectly proper in regard to most of the Acts mentioned in the Schedule, but, as I shall seek to prove, when dealing with the Pensions (Increase) Act, we ought neither to extend it without amendment, nor bring it to an end; we should insist upon a new Measure which can come before the House in a form permitting of its amendment Clause by Clause if the House is not satisfied with the present Act.
It will be necessary to explain something of the circumstances in which the Act which I seek to delete was passed. Members who sat in the last Parliament will be fairly familiar with the long par-


liamentary battle which led up to the production of the 1944 Pensions (Increase) Act. Members coming to the House for the first time will not, perhaps, be so familiar with what happened, and it may be to the advantage of the House if I recapitulate what happened, and why it happened, in 1944.
During and after the last war there was a sharp upward move in the price level in Britain. Taking the cost of living figure in 1914 as 100, the cost of living rose to a peak point in September, 1921, when the index figure stood at 276. The cost of livinghad risen by 176 per cent. Because of the acute hardship which that involved for Civil Service and other State pensioners living on modest pensions, the Government were impelled to do something to relieve their position. An Act was passed increasing to amodest extent the size of the various Civil Service pensions in order to give relief to the pensioners.
At a later stage a sliding scale arrangement was worked out, and agreed upon between the Civil Service trade unions and the Government, under which both the Civil Service cost of living bonus and Civil Service pensions were related to the movement, up or down, of the index figure. That meant that for every five points that the index figure went up, there was a slight increase in the amount of the pensions of our old public servants. From 1921 to 1935, the cost of living, instead of continuing to rise, steadily fell. It fell from 276 in September, 1921, to 155 in 1935. Throughout that period of 14 years, the pensions of Civil Servants were adjusted downwards as the cost of living fell. Nobody grumbled and nobody protested about it. We had had the advantage of more money when the cost of living went up, and it was only fair that we should have the disadvantage of less money when the cost of living fell. Not a groan or a murmur proceeded from the public service or the pensioners during that period.
In 1935 something else happened. The Government, not by agreement with the Civil Service trade unions, but in spite of their opposition, decided to scrap the sliding scale basis of pay and pensions which I have described, and to consolidate wages and pensions at their then level. Thereafter there was to be no movement up or down because of variations in the cost of living figure. From 1935 until

1944 the cost of living figure was rising again, and now stands at a very much higher figure, as every hon. Member is aware, than it did when this war broke out, and still higher than it was in 1935. During all that period the pensioners of the public services received no compensation whatever for the rise in the cost of living. Having had deduction after deduction for 14 years while the cost of living was going down, for the years from 1935 to 1944 they were given no increase whatever, although the cost of living had gone sharply upwards.

7.30 p.m.

Up to now I have mentioned civil servants, but in order to make plain the scope of this matter I must tell the Committee that what was done in the Civil Service was imitated in other branches of the public service; for example, a similar sort of arrangement was applied to teachers, and to local government officers, and indeed the Army and the Navy were affected though their circumstances were not the same in detail. The pensions of retired Army officers and men and naval officers and men—

Colonel Wigg: Will the hon. Member allow me to point out that there is a distinction between an officer's pension and an other rank's pension?

Mr. Brown: I am very much obliged. I am always willing to acquire information from whatever source it comes, but if the hon. Member will allow me to develop my point I think he will find that his interruption was unnecessary. Although the detailed circumstances in the Army and Navy were not the same as they were in what one might call the "civil" services of the country, there was a certain analogy in principle on one point. What happened in the case of the Army and Navy was that a definite cut was made, a cut in the pension, which remained long after the fall in the cost of living which had given rise to it had been replaced by a steady upward movement. Although the details were different the broad issue was the same, whether you were dealing with officers from the military services or with ex-civil servants, ex-teachers, ex-policemen, ex-prison officers, ex-local government servants and the rest.
In 1942, after a period of absence from this House, I returned to it. I always felt that the old place was never


the same since I left it in 1931, and I rejoiced greatly at the privilege of rejoining the House in 1942. I came back here determined to try and do many things, but one thing I swore I would do. I swore that that issue of the harsh, unjust and ungenerous treatment of the pensioners from the public services should be put right. As all Members of the House will know, I launched an agitation, supported on all sides of the House—it was not a party issue—which ultimately reached the point where no less than 250 Members of this House—which was more than half of its effective wartime strength—had their names on the Order Paper attached to a demand that the Government should do something to deal with those poor pensioners.
At long last, after many disappointments and delays, after great travail of spirit and exertion of body, in 1944 the Coalition Government brought in a Bill to give some sort of relief to the various categories of pensioners. The Bill passed into law in March, 1944, as the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944.
I do not deny, and it would be ungenerous of me to deny, that that Act of Parliament did confer relief on very many of the three-quarters of a million people I am talking about. Perhaps I had better emphasise that. It is not a tiny issue, it affects about three-quarters of a million people of one sort or another. It would be ungenerous and wrong to deny that it gave some measure of relief to that large body of retired servants. There were, however, two things wrong about that Act, and it is because they were wrong that I want to take the Act out of the scope of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Since, if it is not taken outside the scope of that Bill, I cannot get those two wrong things put right. Therefore, as a preliminary to getting the two wrong things put right, I must urge the House to delete the Act from the scope of this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
What were the two respects in which that Act was wrong? First it was wrong because it did not restore to the State pensioners what had been taken away from them during the period of declining price levels. The Government did not say, as they ought to have done and as any just Government would have done—but

no Government is just, a Government, as I said the other day, is never a good thing, at best it is a necessary evil—a just Government would have said, "we will treat these men and women with the cost of living going up in exactly the same way as we treated them when it was going down." In other words, if they knocked off a bob a week for a decline of five points in the cost of living, they should put on a bob a week for every rise of five points. That puts it as clearly as I can without giving a lot of figures. That Act, however, did nothing of the kind. What it did was to distribute a relief wholly unrelated to the actual risein the cost of living figure, and of a very much smaller amount than would have been the case if we had done the just thing.
Secondly, and on this I hope to evoke loud and responsive cheers from my comrades on the other side—[Interruption.] Yes, anybody who supports me tonight is a comrade, and as for those who do not—they shall be cast into outer darkness! The second great difficulty about this Act was that even the measure of relief which it gave was given on a "means test" basis. You had to establish need before you got even the modest measure of benefit which the Act provided. Whatever the issues in regard to which I am not at one with my colleagues opposite, there is one issue on which my record in this House has never varied. All the time, from 1931 onwards, I have been opposed to that iniquitous "means test" wherever the ugly thing has shown its head, from the Anomalies Act of 1931, when we were dealing with unemployment, to this Act of 1944 when we were dealing with the retired pensioners.
That was an abominable feature of that Act. Now the Coalition Government knew—because I have been at some pains to point it out—that I was not satisfied with the 1944 Act. The "Caretaker" Government knew I was not satisfied with that Act, and the present Government knows that I am not satisfied with it. Every one of those Governments has known that I have been animated, ever since the Act became law, by the intention to improve it when the time came to renew it, and that time comes in December of this year. I have made representations to the present Ministers, as I made representations to the Ministers of the last Government,


and members of all parties have been associated with me, directly or indirectly, in these representations.
If the Committee votes against my Amendment tonight, it will mean that we shall continue the Act of 1944—unjust, ungenerous, unworthy and mean as it was—unaltered for another 15 months. If the Committee supports the Amendment, we shall compel the Government—I hope they will not need compelling, but if they need compulsion it should be applied—to bring in the Bill for a renewal in a different form, a form which will enable us to debate the Bill Clause by Clause, and to propose the appropriate improvements which the House thinks the merits of the case require. I do not ask hon. Members tonight to pronounce in favour of my view of the 1944 Act; I ask them to give me and others who are interested in the matter the opportunity of demonstrating to the House what our view of it is in circumstances in which, if we convince the House that we are right, we can secure amendments to correspond to the feeling of the House.
I have asked myself why the Government have included this Act in the Schedule to this Bill, and I can think of only two reasons that commend themselves as intelligible ones to me. One reason might be that they desire to avoid a discussion on the merits of the 1944 Act. I cannot think that hon. Members would wish to see 750,000 ex-public servants, who have spent their lives in one form or another of State activity, given no opportunity of arguing their case before the new House of Commons. I hope I will not have to argue with hon. Members opposite that the mere fact that the Coalition Government thought something was right is not of itself an automatic proof that it was! I do not have to argue that. That being so, I ask hon. Members to give us an opportunity of arguing the case of these men and women. The other possible explanation is that the Government have not time. I am susceptible to that argument. It is within the knowledge of all sides of the Committee that I have been outspoken in the view that the machinery of the House ought to be speeded up in order to enable us to deal with more legislation than we do, and I proposed in the Debates on the Address that we should have a Select Committee on Procedure, on which I now

serve. That is evidence enough that I do not want to impede the passage of legislation. Indeed, with other hon. Members I am doing a good deal of hard work on that Select Committee with a view to finding ways and means of speeding up the processes of Parliament. But I hope the argument that we have not time will not be allowed to prevail when the point at issue is whether we are doing the most elementary justice to 750,000 people who have spent their lives in our service.

7.45 p.m.

I want to remind hon. Members that there are some issues on which civil servants and teachers can exercise some pressure. Civil servants have the right to go to the Industrial Court on various issues such as hours and wages, and teachers have the Burnham Committee to which they can take certain types of cases. But there is none of the people to whom I have referred tonight whose unions can take to arbitration an issue affecting superannuation or pension rights. That is excluded from the scope of arbitral questions by the terms of the agreement between the unions and the Government, so that if the Government treat these old men and women wrongly, as I submit the Government are doing, they cannot get a remedy by going to an industrial court or an arbitration board and there insisting on the Treasury turning up and arguing their case, and getting an independent verdict from outside. If they do not get a square deal from the Government, the only place to which they can come, and indeed to which they are entitled to come, is the House of Commons which, in the last resort, is the employer of the men and women I have been talking about. I cannot think that hon. Members will take the view that we have not time to make quite sure that we are doing the right thing (and if we are doing the wrong thing, rapidly to put it right) by the 750,000 people whose position I have described. In all the circumstances, and not out of hostility to the Government, for my attitude to the Government is one of benevolence—

Mr. Gallacher: After what the hon. Member got at the weekend.

Mr. Brown: If it were possible for one hon. Member to put an unworthy construction upon the activities of another


hon. Member I might inevitably be sure that it would be the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). That is part of the psychology of Communism in Britain.

Mr. Gallacher: Cheap stuff.

Mr. Brown: Not cheaper than the character of the interruption warranted. But as the numerical strength of the hon. Member's party is only twice the strength of my own, I will from this point onwards ignore him. This is not a party issue. I beg hon. Members to vote for the Amendment in order that we may insist upon this issue coming before the new House of Commons in a form in which the House can discuss it and make up its mind what ought to be done in respect of the pensions of these people. Many of them have insignificant pensions, and they are suffering great hardship. They look to us for elementary justice, and I hope and believe that from this new House of Commons, that demand for justice will not be denied.

Major Haughton: As this is the first time I have spoken in this Chamber, I crave the indulgence of the Committee, and in anticipation of that sympathetic consideration which is given so wholeheartedly and generously to new Members, I promise to be as brief as I can and to stick to the point. If the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, is continued without Amendment, a grave injustice will be done to certain classes of pensioners, and as I am satisfied that the original injustice was inadvertent, I am equally certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to consider inequalities which otherwise, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has said, will be perpetuated until March, 1947. Already in the House and in this Committee pensions, in their different forms, have been considered and it is obvious that it is the intention of the Government and the wish of Parliament that the old people shall be treated generously and fairly. I am encouraged by that conviction to ask the Financial Secretary to bear with me while I list the arguments for a revision of pensions, in the hope that the Chancellor will authorise considerable adjustment.
I have no wish to impede the passage of the Bill and I have not the experience to put down an Amendment, but I feel certain that, if my arguments ring true,

ways and means will be found to adjust inequalities and to redress wrongs. Under Section (1) of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, a percentage increase, varying according to the size of the pension, was provided, but the total means of the pensioner must not exceed, in the case of a single person, £225, and in the case of a married person £300, the first £52 being ignored as far as this particular calculation is concerned. Civil Servants who retired after 1922 have a further option under the Bill which awards a percentage increase varying with the size of pensions without reference to other means. The reason for that differentiation between civil servants and others was that up to 1944 Civil Service pensions contained a variable element which fluctuated with the cost of living. In 1944 these pensions were consolidated on the basis of a cost-of-living figure of 155, and at the time the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, was passed the cost-of-living figure was 200. I suppose it was felt at that time that the pensioners were entitled to an automatic increase without any regard to their own needs.
Within my certain knowledge the criticisms of the Bill have followed three main lines. The first is on the score of differentiation, the second criticism is the fact that serving teachers are not subject to a means test at all, and the third criticism is that civil servants who retired after February, 1922, have the option of having their pension increase calculated on a basis without regard to sources of other income. It seems radically unfair that retired teachers must submit to a harsh means test while serving teachers and certain groups of civil servants are free from it. Civil servants now serving with salaries up to £1,500, exclusive of their own private incomes, and exclusive of their wives' incomes, receive a bonus of £60 a year, whereas a retired teacher is subject to a means test of £300 a year, inclusive of his own and his wife's private income. That is particularly hard, because it often happens that a teacher is married to another teacher, and it would really be better, from a financial point of view, if a retired teacher lived apart from his wife rather than be under the present scheme. That seems entirely wrong to me and very unfair. Civil servants and teachers now serving have received a war


bonus from the time the cost of living started to rise, but pensioners received no increase until 1944.
I claim that the means test should cither be abolished or applied to both pensioned teachers and retired civil servants, or, in fairness, the limits imposed by the Act should be adjusted on more generous levels. All salaries and pensions of public elementary school teachers and civil servants come from State funds and the incidence of an increase in the cost of living falls on different classes of people with exactly the same severity. It is fair and reasonable to ask the Financial Secretary to consider these inequalities in the Pensions (Increase) Act.
Little did I think that my maiden speech in this place would be made on this particular subject. I have risen to speak tonight because I feel so deeply about it and fear that an injustice may be perpetuated. I had hoped, in my maiden speech, to follow the fine lead which was given by the hon. and gallant Member for Watford (Major Freeman), when he found an opportunity to speak of his own constituency and of the wonderful things that were done there. I confess that in my amateurish way I might have vied with the hon Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) and told an Irish story to enliven the Debate; but those things must wait. They are luxuries which must give place to the needs of the moment. I may have a chance to urge what the linen trade, as the second exporting trade, might do to bring millions of dollars to this country, and what the exportable surplus of Irish agriculture might do to supply the needs of the people of Great Britain. But all these things must rest, and in my maiden speech, if by chance I have made a point which touches some heartstrings in the Financial Secretary, I should be well content and very grateful.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: As one whose maiden speech is only just behind him perhaps I may enter fully into the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton) and say to him on behalf of the whole Committee that if he continues to espouse his cause with the sincerity, eloquence and logical persuasion which has characterised his contribution tonight, and in an accent which I find extremely pleasing, then we

shall indeed all be glad to hear his further contributions. I am very glad to find myself on the same side as he is in this matter and to support the contribution which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has made, although not necessarily to endorse all the terms in which he made his case. This, as has been truly said, is an all-party matter. I cannot accept the view that this Government is committed, necessarily, to doing something which expediency is pushing it into doing. I think that probably the best way one can make one's case is by referring to the circumstances in which this Act became law, and to expound the argument why it should not find its way, tucked away in Part II of the Schedule, into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. When one looks at the other Acts which are to be continued, either from their relative importance or the amount of money to be expended, one is bound to conclude that this Act is not in the same category.
I hope I am in Order in referring to the Financial Memorandum on this Bill, for I would like to say that the Coal Mines Act, 1912, which is continued, will cost about £100, the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, which is continued, will involve us in the payment of only a few small sums, and the Debts Clearing Offices and Import Restrictions Act, 1934, will involve us in some other small amount. None of these is in line with the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, which, as the hon. Member for Rugby said, is a matter of very big moment both on account of the number of people it affects and in the cost which is incurred in putting it into effect. I submit to the Financial Secretary that this Act should not have been tucked away in this manner in Part II of the Schedule. It would probably make the case stronger if I might refer to practical reasons why we should have fresh consideration of this question. Let me do so by referring to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the Second Reading of the Bill which he introduced, on 3rd March, 1944, he said:
It follows, I think, from, what I have said, that the Bill should be limited in duration—as it is by its terms—so that it may be reviewed from time to time in the light of changing circumstances. Clause 10 (2) of the Bill limits its duration to the end of 1945 and we have made that provision in


the expectation that, before that time, the whole position will again have been reviewed and the Government will have announced their decision in the light of the then ascertained facts.
I know that that was a Coalition Government and does not commit this Government, but, on an all-party or non-party matter of this kind, involving, as it does, so many people, I would say to the Financial Secretary and the Government that that pledge, if I might put it so high, should be honoured and that we should have an opportunity of discussing this matter. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Hon. Members, therefore, are right in regarding this Bill as of a short-term, emergency character.
Later, in the course of the Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The Bill is an emergency Measure, to meet the position of the small pensioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1944; Vol. 397, c. 1763–1773.]
Finally, on the Third Reading of the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said:
This Bill has been introduced in order that we may go as far as is consistent with present circumstances and with principles which must be maintained towards meeting grievances and relieving hardship on the part of very deserving classes of public servants."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1944; Vol. 399, c. 1520.]
My point is that there may be, legitimately, differences of opinion between the Government and those of us who think differently as to whether, in fact, the whole position ought to be reviewed because circumstances have changed. They may take the view that, shall we say, the cost of living has not increased to the point where we are entitled to ask for more, but that is not the basis on which they have put this. They have just tucked it away so that we have no opportunity of debating the issue and making our case. Everyone affected by it, and those hon. Members concerned with the increase in the old age pension, must see that this is a similar sort of issue, only affecting a particular class of people.
I would just say this on the question whether the circumstances have or have not changed. The hon. Member for Rugby, who did so much work on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, will probably remember the basis on which the Chancellor justified fixing his ceiling in regard to an increase. The right hon.

Gentleman said that he fixed the ceiling at £x on the basis that the bonus now being given to civil servants is not given to people getting more than x pounds. But, since that, as hon. Members know, the bonus has been increased and people on a higher salary level are now getting the bonus. That is precisely a case of changed circumstances which should be taken into account. I apprecite the Government's difficulty on this issue. Whatever the hon. Member for Rugby says, there are only five weeks left to us, and I do not blame the Government for not having done something about it earlier. True, something should have been done about it earlier, but they only came into office in August and events have been jostling them pretty hard ever since. As a Government supporter I say that I appreciate their difficulties, but I think they have an obligation to help us. There are certain pledges which they ought to carry out, and there is a case which can be established on its merits. Therefore, I hope that the Financial Secretary will give us some hope that we shall not have to wait until the end of March, 1947, before the hardship to which these people are subjected can be looked at again. The old age pensioners will, I believe, get an increase before then. Why, then, should these people wait until 1947, when this Bill will come up for renewal? Can the Financial Secretary devise some method to help these people now, in, order to make sure that something is done for them in the next few months?

Mr. Lipson: May I associate myself with the congratulations offered by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callagan) to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Antrim (Major Haughton)? He told us of a great variety of topics on which he might have spoken, but I think we are all agreed that he chose the right one and spoke most eloquently upon it. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), ever vigilant, has performed a public service once again in drawing attention to this Act, and trying to secure a square deal for so many ex-Government employees, ex-teachers and ex-local government employees. I was surprised to find, in my own constituency, how many former employees of the Corporation benefited under this Act. Cheltenham is not a large town, but something like 120 benefited, and, in addition to that, there were many


former teachers and ex-officers and others who did so. Therefore, I think, hon. Members will find that there are a great many of their constituents who are vitally interested in the proceedings of the Committee tonight, and who will call the hon. Member for Rugby not "comrade," but, I think, "blessed," if he can succeed in persuading the Government to give further consideration to this matter.
Many of us thought that the Act gave precious little to these former servants of the community. But even what they were given, when that Act was administered, was not wholly theirs. I drew attention in the last Parliament to the working of this Act as it affected old age pensioners. Some of those who benefited under the Act were men over 70 who were old age pensioners—in some instances they received a few more shillings a week under the Act. What happened to their old age pension? The old age pension was reduced because of the increases given under the Act. That was never intended by Parliament when the Act was passed. The amount given under the Act was little enough, but it was the intention of Parliament that the pensioners should benefit 100 per cent. by the amount provided by the Act, but in point of fact this was not to be so. I raised the matter in the last Parliament and was able to give instances of the following type: Under the Act a former employee was entitled to an old age pension of 10s. a week and he found that 6s., 7s. or8s. of his old age pension was taken away. That sort of thing ought to be put right, and it can be put right. All that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby is asking tonight is that this Act should be looked at afresh. We have been told that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer intended that the Act should be reviewed if the circumstances changed, and we have had our attention drawn to certain ways in which circumstances have changed. One particular change which has taken place is of very great importance.
This is a very different House of Commons from the previous one. We were told by, I think, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) that this was a different House of Commons, that this was a different Government. Here is an opportunity for them to show that, instead of

just feeling that they are committed to what was done by the previous Government, the Government will either be prepared to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend or at least not to put the Whips on. Cannot this matter be left to a free vote of the House? All the Amendment is asking is that this new House of Commons shall have the opportunity of looking at this problem afresh in the light of the changed circumstances and the fact that the viewpoint of hon. Members is necessarily different from that of those who were in the last Parliament. I do not think there is anything unreasonable in that. I am quite sure that if hon. Members opposite were in Opposition, they would feel there was only one way in which they could vote. Surely, in this matter the party system need not be too tyrannical, and it can allow a little play for the consciences of hon. Members opposite so that they can vote as they want to vote, as their constituents want them to vote, as those who put them in power expect them to vote? This is an opportunity. It is only a small thing we are asking, that the Government show they are worthy of their position, and are not going to use their majority tyrannically. Let them agree to the Amendment which has been moved with his customary eloquence and with more than his customary reasonableness, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Burden: As one who took some small part in the discussion of the 1944 Act, I would urge the Government to think again on this matter and to help us. The Act was introduced in order to assist retired civil servants, local government officers and others, and that implies, of course, that that type of person was badly in need of financial assistance. However, what do we find in actual practice? As has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), the fact is that local authorities are obliged to operate in full Section 7 of the Act. As a result, instance after instance is arising where under the Act an amount is given but, on the other hand, it is taken away by a decrease in the old age pension. When the Act was under discussion the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), the then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, gave an assurance that such an anomaly would


be put right by administrative action so far as the Civil Service was concerned, and I believe that has been done, but local government officers and other similar classes are under a double disadvantage because, while they are provided for in the Act, they are not provided for by administrative action so far as the decrease of their pensions is concerned. Therefore, I ask the Government to think again on this matter.
I am sorry also that the Act has been included in this way because, when the Bill was under discussion, we had a more or less implied promise that the railway superannuated staff would be considered. Little to nothing has been done in that connection but, coming up in this way, it is impossible for the matter to be reopened as we would reopen it if a Bill were before the House in the ordinary way. Therefore, in view of these anomalies and difficulties which have arisen in administration, I beg the Government to give us an opportunity, as the Chancellor in the late Government said would be given, to review the whole circumstances once again.

Mr. Butcher: I would like to join from this section of the House in an appeal to the Financial Secretary to reconsider this matter and ascertain whether he cannot see his way clear to adopt the Amendment of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown). I was very much impressed by the quotation from the earlier Debate read by the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan). Certainly hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee think we have a better House of Commons and a better Government than when the Bill became law. I am one who does not think so. Indeed, if we had a Coalition Government in Office we would have been able to hold them to their promise of review and, therefore, I urge the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to regard himself and this Government—some of whose most prominent Members were distinguished Members of the Coalition Government—as bound by the pledge for re-examination.
It is extremely difficult to decide whether the 1944 Act can properly be amended while we are debating the question of whether the Second Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill shall stand part, and the Committee is in a very

great difficulty. I have come to the conclusion that the time for the means test is rapidly coming to an end, if, indeed, it has not already come to an end. However, I am satisfied of this, that it may be that one can find some section of the community to whom it might, under certain circumstances, be proper to apply a means test. I do not say there is such a section, but it might be possible to find such a section [An Hon. Member:" M.P's."] However, I am satisfied that the section to which one ought not to apply it is those people who, drawn from the respectable ranks of the Civil Service and teaching profession, have spent their lifetime in the public service. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made, if I may say so, a most admirable speech on the Budget. In the Budget Debate, the point was made, either by him or by the Chancellor, as to the difference between gross cost and net cost. The Chancellor told us how much such a concession would cost, and then said, "But I shall recover this at the standard rate of 9s. in the £." I ask the Financial Secretary if he will give some similar figures under this Bill. What would be the cost of paying these increases without a means test? What would be the gross cost? Will the Financial Secretary tell us how much he would recover in Income Tax as a result in order to do away with the means test on these people? I believe this is not the right way in which an important Measure, passed during the war years, should be reviewed, and I therefore hope that the Financial Secretary will see his way clear to accept the Amendment.

Mr. George Thomas: I would like to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) for bringing forward tonight this question, which would have passed my observation, at least, as a new Member of the House. I believe that a question of this character, which affects the whole of the teaching profession, as well as the police force, the Civil Service and others, is not one which should have been tucked away in this fashion.I know that at the moment the teaching profession in this country is already making moves towards asking for the abolition of the means test from the pensions of their colleagues, and nobody would be more resentful or bewildered than the members of that profession if


they found, tomorrow, that an opportunity of amending the Pensions (Increase) Act had been taken from them. I think this is an attempt, quite innocently, to get us to vote in the dark, and I want to say that so long as I am in this House, I shall never vote for a means test for people whose pensions are already too small.
The present Act has many inequalities, and needs improving. If it means that by voting tonight against the Amendment no opportunity is given to amend this Act, which is resented by the profession of which I had the honour to be a member, and which has looked towards this House with confidence, then I cannot vote against the Amendment, and I shall not do so unless we have an assurance that an opportunity will be given to us to consider the means test and an improvement in the basic scales of pension for these people. There are uncertificated people in the country whose pension, even when increased under the present Act, leaves them well below the poverty line. In view of the promise which was given when this Act was introduced, and which was long overdue, we have the right to say to the Government, "You must redeem the promise which was given in the name of the Government of the day to people who were in the employ of the Government." For that reason, I wish again to thank the hon. Member for Rugby for bringing to the notice of the Committee the issue which is at stake.

Mr. Osbert Peake: The hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) referred just now to a statement I made when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and perhaps I might offer a few observations at this stage, although I have no wish to curtail the Debate. This matter has been discussed this evening upon a non-party basis. Sympathy has been expressed in several quarters of the Committee for the Amendment which, I think, puts Members in something of a dilemma, because the method of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) to secure reconsideration of this matter is to move to omit from the Schedule what is admittedly a beneficent Measure. Therefore, whichever way we vote tonight we shall be in difficulties in explaining our actions to our constituents. I, personally, when asked about this matter earlier in the year, when I occupied the position now held by the

Financial Secretary, gave a pledge that although this Act expired at the end of the year the then Government would see that it was renewed. Anxieties were then being expressed as to whether the Act would be allowed to expire at the end of the present year.
Members who support the hon. Member for Rugby in the Lobby tonight will, I think, show rather more confidence and faith in the Government than I myself possess, because they will do so on the footing that if this Act is taken out of the Schedule the Government will, between now and 31st December, bring in a more beneficent Measure, and pass it into law. Although I have sympathy with the case made out by the hon. Member for Rugby I hope the Financial Secretary will beable to make a statement which will enable the Committee to avoid a Division tonight. The Pensions (Increase) Act is admittedly imperfect in one very important particular. When I was at the Treasury several cases were brought to my notice where the effect of an increase of pension under that Act was to diminish entitlement to the non-contributory old age pension to an equal extent and even, in some cases, to a greater extent, than the benefit conferred by the Pensions (Increase) Act. For that reason, if for no other, I hope the Financial Secretary will be able to say that this matter will be looked at again in the near future, long before the date fixed by the Expiring Law Continuance Bill, which is March, 1947, and be able to assure us that the Chancellor will personally look at the matter to see whether the admitted defects in the Pensions (Increase) Act cannot be remedied at an early date. If the hon. Gentlemen were able to take that course it would give great satisfaction in all quarters of the Committee, and enable us to avoid a Division which would be very embarrassing to many Members.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I have no quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) who, I think, set down this Amendment largely so that he could put the point of view which he has put with such clarity and force. That point of view is certainly not new to many of us, because the hon. Member put it on more than one occasion in the last Parliament. He also saw, at the Treasury, my right hon. Friend's predecessor, and also


saw the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). He said, and others have said to-night, that this is not a party issue, and I think that is true. But while it is not a party issue it is also not as simple an issue as some would have the Committee believe. It is, I am sorry to say, quite impossible for me to go over the arguments which have been used tonight and to answer them one by one, because if I did I should be wasting the time of the Committee. What the hon. Member for Rugby seeks to leave out has been put into the Schedule of this Bill for one reason only, and that is that this Act should continue in being. This is the only method by which that can be done. It is quite impossible, owing to the congestion of the Government timetable between now and 31st December to consider—that itself would take some time—and then to bring in amending legislation to the Act of 1944. Therefore, the Government have done the only thing they can do, and incidently implemented the promise given by my right hon. Friend who sits opposite some months ago when he stood where I now stand. That promise was to include it in the present Bill.

8.30 p.m.

The only change we have made is to put it in Part II Schedule of this Bill instead of Part I, and the reason for that is this: If it were put in Part I it would lapse on 31st December, 1946. This would mean that only nine months of the next financial year would be covered whilst the Estimates covering it would be for a full year to 31st March, 1947. Therefore, purely for technical reasons connected with the financial side of the Act, we have now put it in Part II, which will carry it like the Estimate on to 31st March, 1947. I can assure the House that that does not necessarily mean that the Government intends to go right through to that date without doing something in the meantime. We realise, as has been said by the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North (Mr. Peake) and other speakers that the present Act has given rise to anomalies which do need ironing out at some time. As indicated in the excellent speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Major Haughton), the Government of Northern Ireland is

interested in this Act. It is desirable that the British Government should look at it, and this it intends to do as soon as possible.

One of the points made in the Debate was that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer indicated it was a temporary Measure to meet the greatest cases of hardship; that it would be looked at, from time to time, in order to see the extent to which, if any, conditions had altered. The plain fact is that when the Bill was introduced in March, 1944, the cost of living index figure then stood, I think, at about 30 per cent. above the 1939 figure. The hon. Member for Rugby is a past master in using the argument that suits him best—and I do not blame him—he went back to 1935; but actually, when the Measure was introduced, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer took the figure as it then existed, and compared it with the figure which existed in 1939—when war broke out. He committed himself to that figure—and it was not challenged at the time—that the cost of living had gone up in the interim by about 30 per cent. The cost of living figure today is much the same—about 30 per cent. above the 1939 figure. The figure laid down by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in March, 1944, approximated roughly to the figure of today, on which he gave an increase of 30, 25 and 20 per cent. to the various categories of recipients and the same figures apply today. The cost of living is practically the same now as when the Measure was introduced.

I am not using that as an argument for no change. I am simply indicating to the Committee that, even on the undertaking made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that the matter would be looked at from time to time in the light of existing circumstances, even taking his words and applying them to the present time, it is true to say that the situation, so far as the cost of living is concerned, has not changed.

The position is today quite fluid, and that is one reason, perhaps, for not rushing in too soon in this matter. We cannot be certain what may happen to the cost of living. We do not know how prices are going to go. There is something to be said for waiting until we know more where we are. No-one knows better than the hon. Member for Rugby how difficult these


things are to settle finally once for all. One of the troubles has been, and it was implicit in something he said in the course of his speech that pensioners who retired in the early nineteen-twenties, had their pensions based on their existing rates, whilst others, who came out of the Service later, because the cost of living had gone down, found they suffered accordingly, and, naturally, felt aggrieved. That meant a great deal of trouble before that matter was settled, it has, in fact, not been settled even today.

Therefore, when we do settle this thing, it should be settled, if possible, along just and fair lines which everyone concerned felt were just and fair. All I can say tonight is I hope that the Committee will not agree to this Amendment, but will let us include this Act in the Schedule to the Bill. I can promise the Committee that the Government will look at this—[Hon. Members: "When"?] Give me time to say when. We will look at it as soon as possible; they cannot look at it before then, and, that being so, I think that is as far as the Government can be expected to go tonight.

Mr. Harry Wallace: May I ask whether this review is to be strictly limited to the cost of living? These pensions are grossly inadequate. I hope that the Financial Secretary is not suggesting that it is going to be restricted merely to the cost of living index figure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course not. All questions that are relevant will be looked at. I was dealing with the cost of living, because it has been said that the cost of living had gone up and created hardship for civil servants, teachers, members of the police force and other pensioners, which this Bill came into being to assist. Quite obviously, therefore, the cost of living will have a lot to do with it. Naturally, however, we do not want to confine consideration just to the cost of living, and go no further than that. The Government will look at this matter during the coming months, and if will look at it with sympathy, because it realises that the present position cannot be continued indefinitely, year after year, in a Bill of this sort. The present Act does contain anomalies and there is feeling about it in all quarters of the House. That being so, the Government will study what has been said during the debate, and will consider what has been said sym-

pathetically to see what, if anything, can be done to put this matter on a satisfactory and permanent basis.

Mr. Brown: I do not want to force an-unnecessary Division, but I am an old enough bird at this business to be able to assess, with some degree of accuracy, assurances from the Front Bench, and I have seldom heard a vaguer assurance. Cannot the Minister go further and do the job in three months? If he cannot do justice to it in three months, something must be wrong, but can he give us an assurance that he will do it in the next three or four months?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry I cannot give any assurance of that kind. I did not go into the matter in the fullest detail, but, quite frankly, now that the hon. Gentleman presses me, the people who are referred to in this particular Act, and are covered by it, are not the only people suffering, or the only people who have a small pension, and find that the rise in the cost of living does not allow that pension to go as far as it previously did. All sorts of people are in the same position. There are the people living on small annuities, or savings, or small pensions not received from the State. The problem is not quite so easy as the hon. Gentleman would lead the Committee to suppose.
We realise that this Measure was, as the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said, a temporary one to relieve hardship of a special kind, due to a rise in the cost of living during the war. It was purposely made temporary in character, because nobody knew what the years ahead would bring, and we still do not know that. All we do know is that, thanks to Government policy, the cost of living has not risen to any great extent and is still round about the figure it was when this Bill was passed. Nevertheless, in spite of that fact, the Government give the assurance that during the coming year they will look at the matter with the utmost sympathy to see what can be done to meet the criticisms that have been levelled at it, and at the anomalies, which we all now see are in the measure, and will see what, if anything, in addition must be done. It may be that, when inquiry takes place, it will find little, or nothing, wrong, although I do not think that will be the case. But I do not know; I cannot prejudge the issue. All I can say is that the


Government will, at the earliest possible moment, look at this matter with sympathy, to see what can be done, and, when that has been decided on, will, within the limits of the Parliamentary programme, do what it can in the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. York: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether you intend to call the next Order at this late hour of the night?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am bound to call the next Business on the Order Paper.

Orders of the Day — CHARTERED AND OTHER BODIES (RESUMPTION OF ELECTIONS) BILL [Lords.]

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

8.50 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: On the Second Reading stage, my right hon. Friend raised a question with regard to "satisfactory elections" which appeared in one Clause, and the right hon. Gentleman said he would have a look at it and see if he could change it. As there was no Government Amendment presumably he did not find any reason in his own mind to make an alteration. Perhaps it would not be out of Order, as the words stay in the Bill, if the Home Secretary explained what is meant by "satisfactory elections".

8.51 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): There have been several examples recently, but what it means in this case is one in which there are adequate and appropriate electors to take part in the election. The Bill is designed to deal with a situation rather with regard to dock and harbour trusts, where, owing to the fact that most of the chartering has been done by the Government, dues have not been paid by the people who used to be the electors. Their eligibility as electors depended upon their

paying dues. This Bill is designed to see that those who really ought to take part in the election on any permanent basis shall be the people who do take part. We have searched very earnestly to find a better word than "satisfactory." We are assured it is the only satisfactory word.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Special Report from the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders, etc., considered.

8.52 p.m.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew (Ayr and Bute, Northern): I beg to move,
That the Order of Reference [23rd August] to the Committee be amended in line 17, by leaving out 'of it,' and inserting instead thereof 'or in the laying of it before Parliament.' 
The Amendment is perfectly simple. At the present time the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee report to the House any unjustifiable delay in publication, and this is to add unjustifiable delay in laying them before the House. I think there is agreement on it on all sides.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The Government feel that this is a very reasonable Amendment to the terms of reference. They feel that the House should have the assurance that the Committee will be able to make a report on this particular failure, if it should occur, and they advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Orders of the Day — MENTAL HOSPITALS

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

8.54 p.m.

Mr. John Lewis: In this year of 1945 there are approximately 127,000 mental disorder patients in our hospitals and homes. The majority are treated in wholly or partly rate-aided institutions, and the remainder in institutions under


private management. It is an unquestionable fact that the staffs of these institutions, male and female, are working under the most difficult conditions, due to a lack of accommodation and to under-staffing. For that reason it is only possible for them to skim the surface of treatment, because their time is taken up in ordinary routine and giving the patients proper attention and care and keeping them fed and clean. In order to appreciate this problem more fully its social background should be remembered, particularly as it affects public opinion today and therefore the patient. In these circumstances the attitude of mind of those who are brought into close contact with the patient is of vital importance, in view of the fact that very often this is a precipitating factor in the onset of the disorder. I know that among primitive people insanity is regarded with suspicion and fear, and very often is associated with witchcraft, demons or the devil, resulting in maltreatment of the sufferer. [Interruption.] Probably the hon. Member who interrupts knows more about primitive people than I do. We remember that only 100 years ago it was the common pastime to bait the lunatics in Bedlam. We have improved quite a lot since then, but today the whole question of insanity is avoided out of superstition, fear, or ignorance.
It is vitally essential, if we are to do anything about this tremendous problem, that the whole matter should be put on the same plane as other physical disorders, and the public should be taught that mental illness and mental hospitals are just another part of general hospital work. The figures relating to people in our institutions, although vast, are very misleading, because they represent only a fraction of those people who are in need of mental treatment and attention. For instance, we understand that psychoneurotics occur in 2 per cent. of the population, and few of those people receive the care and attention they need. In addition general practitioners advise us that 30 to 50 per cent. of their practice is concerned with people who are suffering from functional nervous disorders in various forms and manifestations. What is far worse, in our general hospitals 17 per cent. of those referred to general medical outpatient departments are suffering from psychological illness without any serious organic component. Some of them will eventually come into hospital as

certified patients. Others will carry on, burdens to themselves and others with whom they come into contact, and will live out their lives without happiness and work without efficiency.
It has been proved that the greatest opportunities for recovery lie in early treatment. When we look at our mental hospitals today we ask ourselves what inducement there is for patients to enter voluntarily to receive treatment. I maintain that the inducements we have to offer are few and the drawbacks to which we have to confess are many. Reputations die hard and the reputation of a mental hospital as a place of forcible retention is still with us. The very remoteness of the places, with their high walls, bleak premises with their locked doors, makes it absolutely clear to those people who are sufficiently rational to think that those who enter may never return and the very thing we are trying to effect is defeated. Today 40 per cent. of the patients who enter mental institutions return to their families completely cured, and 20 per cent. return home much improved.
These figures are even more encouraging when we bear in mind that very often these people come to the mental hospitals in a late stage of mental illness and very often in the last stages of senile dementia. If we could only give them early treatment, the prospects of cure would be considerably improved. There is no doubt there is the stigma of insanity which is the predominating feature militating against these people entered for voluntary treatment. There is not the glamour which surrounds the general hospital. People do not mind having an illness like pneumonia, and I believe some people are very proud of any condition which requires surgical interference, but as soon as they are told it is a matter of mental illness the whole matter becomes obsessed with mystery and fear, and people attempt to hide from themselves the fact that that is the illness from which they are suffering.
Most of our mental hospitals are neither beautiful nor cheerful, nor do they radiate that atmosphere which is vital—the hopeful atmosphere of recovery. We find that 70 per cent. of the inmates of these institutions are suffering from chronic or senile dementia and cannot benefit from any form of treatment other than care and


attention. That care is lavished upon them by a devoted mental staff to whom we owe very much but, having regard to those facts, it is impossible to imagine all people in need of attention voluntarily entering mental institutions. We should take steps to amend the system and bring to the light of day what is a most urgent and pressing problem, and with this end in view we must educate public opinion. When I say public opinion I include some medical men, because some insanity seems to be regarded by some of them as a crime or slur. Mental illness must be as much a normal aspect of life as a physical disorder, and we must recognise that it exists in its various manifestations and forms to the extent that it does and not avoid the consequences of such knowledge.
When we look at the accommodation in many municipal mental hospitals we find it is hopelessly inadequate. There are approximately 1,000–3,000 patients in the average mental hospital. If we compare the space which is allocated to patients in fever hospitals and general hospitals with that in mental hospitals, we find that fever hospitals have 144 square feet per bed, general hospitals 120 square feet, and mental hospitals only 50 square feet. When we remember that some of the dormitories must be less restricted in space, for example, in sickbays, and infectious wards, it is not surprising that in other parts of the hospital the beds are packed still further closely together so that it is impossible to stand up between them. In many dormitories and airing courts conditions are so bad that if people want sitting room they have to squash together.
Then we come to this most terrible indictment of our present system. Deaths from tuberculosis in 1942 in our mental institutions were 15 times as high as in the normal population. These figures, coming as they do from such a colossal incidence, make our mental hospitals a source of infection. When we remember that approximately 60 per cent. return temporarily or permanently to their normal environment from mental hospitals where there is this high death rate from this terrible disease, we can appreciate the seriousness of the problem. These appallingly high figures have been reduced in instances where the overcrowding has been reduced and where the dietary has been improved. There is no reason why

the incidence of tuberculosis in mental institutions should be any higher than among the normal population, and it would certainly be reduced if accommodation and diet were regarded as of essential importance in medical health treatment and if active tuberculosis were isolated. The majority of our hospitals are very old and out of date; some of them are more than 100 years old and they are regarded by people as places of detention and not as places for treatment. When we see how the patients are classified we have every reason to understand why there is this feeling about mental hospitals among the people whom we try to induce to enter for early treatment because patients are not classified according to their type of mental disease, but, as a rule, by their degree of physical infirmity; secondly, by the degree of noise, and thirdly by habits, whether dean, dirty, destructive or violent. Throughout all the wards in these hospitals are many epileptics and potential suicides. They are scattered throughout the whole hospital, the category or classification in which a person is placed depending upon which of the classifications to which I have referred is the dominant feature. It is a most unscientific method of dealing with a vital matter.
In many hospitals true convalescent wards do not exist. Patients who are presumed to be convalescent are usually sent into the admission ward, and there they stay until they have to make way for newcomers. In these admission wards people often come in and die and this is not the best environment in which to place a person in a convalescent stage. Convalescent patients are often sent into the chronic wards where the permanent residents are clean and quiet. They may be profoundly demented or schizophrenics but so long as they are notoutwardly too disturbing convalescent patients are sent in with them. Needless to say this atmosphere is not the most stimulating and encouraging for a patient who is trying to adjust himself to normal circumstances after a most devastating mental experience. So far as hospital wards are concerned, these are utilised to a large extent for the chronically infirm and not for patients who come into the hospitals for treatment. There you may have people who have been bedridden for 50 years, and they are often noisy, excited, wet or dirty.


It is quite impossible to conceive that these conditions are the proper conditions which should exist for people in mental institutions who are acutely ill and necessitous of treatment.
The patients are, in the majority of cases, fed from great centralised kitchens and the food has to be transported for long distances. It very often arrives cold and has to be served by the nurses. The people who cook the food do not see it served, which is a very undesirable feature. I believe that an advisory committee of the Ministry of Labour have advocated that in general hospitals catering should be under the control of a catering manager directly responsible to the management committee. I suggest to my hon. Friend that that recommendation should apply also to mental hospitals. The standard of diet in many institutions is at the public assistance level and in my view is too low and unsuitable to those whose history prior to admission and resulting condition make a well-balanced and ample diet an absolute necessity, bearing in mind that an improved physical condition is the first step towards recovery. It is absolutely necessary that they should have an ample and well-balanced diet. The low standard of diet has its origin in the fact that some years ago it was believed that low feeding would keep a patient quiet, presumably for weeks. That system still operates today in some places.
So far as the medical staff is concerned, we find at the present time that the average is one doctor to anything from 300 to 700 patients. That is a quite insufficient number for allowing doctors to spend time on research in psychiatry. They are most generally concerned with general hospital administration. Many hospitals still follow the practice that male patients are nursed by male nurses and female patients by female nurses, whereas it has been quite definitely proved in Maudsley Hospital that that practice is quite unnecessary.

Dr. Morgan: It is not the general rule.

Mr. Lewis: In very many cases it is so.

Dr. Morgan: It is not the general rule throughout the country now that male mental patients should be nursed by male nurses, and vice versa.

Mr. Lewis: Even if my hon. Friend will not agree that it is the general practice,

I think that, in view of the fact that I am advocating that this question should be treated as part of a general health scheme and not be separated from it, we should take the worse conditions that obtain in our mental hospitals when considering this problem. There is also the question of the isolation of mental from general nursing services, for this leads to the impoverishment of both services and a lack of understanding of the tradition and knowledge of either. Colonel J. Ivison Russell, at a recent meeting of the Mental Association, said that 70 per cent. of the patients in mental hospitals who caused the major part of the work, and whom he referred to as settled, were senile dements who only needed care and attention. They are unstable mental defectives who cause trouble at home. There are unstable incurable psychotics who cannot benefit in any way from any form of treatment of any kind. Many of them are bedridden. Some of them are devoid of human faculties. The most depressing spectacle that any one can see are these sub-human wrecks kept alive by the devotion of the nursing staffs and filling our hospitals with an air of unescapable tragedy.
Patients are expected to enter this sort of atmosphere voluntarily to obtain early treatment. Apart from the emotional associations, there are the general architecture and bleakness of these places which make a person fear their ultimate freedom. The first thing he thinks about is that at all costs he must keep out of them. We must help these people by introducing new methods into the hospitals and a new approach to the subject in order to ensure that they shall not be obliged to submerge their already disintegrated personalities amongst our vast numbers of patients. As far as finance is concerned, we are faced with the depressing fact that, whereas to keep a patient in an ordinary general hospital costs £4 10s. a week, only 30s. is required to keep a patient in a mental hospital. There are patients who can afford to pay, and they have more cheerful surroundings and better furniture, but no better treatment, because it is not available. It is depressing to envisage pauper patients in public assistance institutions having no privileges in regard to the standard of their treatment. They cannot afford to go into proper homes to avoid certification. They are sent by the relieving officer into a public assistance institution.

It being a Quarter past Nine o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

Mr. J. Lewis: Thousands of them are retained in the mental wards of public assistance institutions just eking out their lives without any form of treatment whatsoever. I maintain that if my right hon. Friend is going to give the attention he should to this problem he must budget a great deal more money for improved standards of treatment, nursing, surroundings and research, and at the same time he must make the public understand this need.
In so far as mental hospitals are concerned, I maintain that they should be built in two separate categories. In the first place there should be hospitals to deal with the 70 per cent. of chronic cases which cannot and will not improve, and in the second place there should be hospitals for the treatment of the acute cases with all the most modern scientific methods that can be employed. It will not be necessary to discard our present hospitals, because some of the inmates have been there for more than 50 years, and, as they cannot benefit from treatment of any kind, it is reasonable that they should be left to end their days there. In regard to hospitals for dealing with these acute cases, there must be an entirely different method of approach. They must be regarded as centres for treatment, training and research, and all departments must work together. As far as we know, hope of recovery depends on early treatment, and for that reason we must make our hospitals attractive, we must do away with this fear of entering which exists at present. There must be that atmosphere which is linked with and derived from being a part of the great centres of medicine and science. New hospitals must be built near to universities or medical schools. A medical superintendent should be a teaching member of a university. Where a chair of psychiatry does not exist it may well be that one will be established. There should be teaching hospitals in the vicinity with adequate outpatient facilities and a psychiatrist provided by the mental hospital, because we must recognise that there is a large field

for out-patient work among those who need never be in-patients, who, for economic or psychological reasons, must keep on with their jobs and their daily routine at the same time as they are receiving treatment.
In so far as nursing staff is concerned, I feel that there should be quite a different approach altogether. There must be two distinct types of nurses, one type who will look after the chronic patients, kind-hearted women who are prepared to minister to the mind-diseased and to devote themselves to their work knowing full well that they will see neither any gratitude nor be rewarded with the joys of recovery. Then there, must be the double-trained sisters in charge of those institutions and double-trained staff nurses, and every possible means must be taken to ensure that the most scientific methods are employed to deal with this terrible problem. A tremendous amount of research must be carried out, and I maintain that every mental hospital should have a bio-chemist and bio-physicist, because I think that these problems are largely problems of biochemistry and bio-physicists. So far as equipment is concerned, a large sum of money must be budgeted to ensure a general system of treatment throughout the country, employing the latest and most modern devices.
I would like to deal finally with certain matters associated with the general administration of our mental hospitals. If a patient is suffering from tuberculosis and he goes to his doctor who diagnoses the disease, the doctor will send him to the tuberculosis officer, who will send the patient to a sanatorium, or chest hospital as they are now called. If, however, the general practitioner finds that his patient is suffering from a mental disease of any kind, he calls in the relieving officer, who is not a doctor, who places the patient in an observation ward in a county or county borough hospital. There may be an interval of 14 days for certification or discharge and, in the case of a poor patient who, in the view of the relieving officer, is a person in need of care and attention, he may be sent to a Poor Law institution and certified there by bringing in a magistrate, who is not specially empanelled, without the advice of an outside doctor.
I am pleased to say that in some constituencies, particularly in my own, it is


the practice for the magistrate to bring with him an outside doctor for the purposes of certification. The mental health of our nation should not be left, as far as local administration is concerned, to a sub-committee of a public health committee. I suggest that there should be a special hospitals committee, which would be a statutory committee, for, dealing with this matter, and that it should be directly responsible to my right hon. Friend. I think it would be a good thing to keep the regional system going, because in each region there is a hospital officer who is responsible for the general administration in the region, and it would avoid over-centralisation and the whole scheme becoming unwieldy. But there is no doubt that the lunacy laws must be amended, and the Board of Control must be swept away, because it is intolerable that merely a lack of means should be the factor which decides whether a person should lose his freedom or not. There is no doubt at all that this is a gross infringement upon the liberty of the subject which should be taken off the Statute Book.
In the time available I have tried to deal with certain aspects of this problem as I see them, and we have been gratified with the announcement that my right hon. Friend is to bring in a Bill early next year to deal with the national health question, but I do hope he will give consideration to this matter and that he will bear in mind at all times that mental health cannot in any way be separated from general health, and that specialist treatment rather than restraint should be the dominant factor in the legislation which he will introduce in regard to this matter. If he does that I am satisfied he will have taken steps to remove from our fair land what I believe to be a blot on our national honour and prestige. Common humanity demands that this whole question receive the immediate attention of all those people responsible for the administration of our health services, and I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend, who is applying himself so assiduously to this matter, will do what is expected of him by so many people.

9.22 p.m.

Dr. Stephen Taylor: While I cannot go all the way with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton (Mr. Lewis), I can in general agree with him; but in one or two instances he has over-painted the picture a little, for example

in connection with tuberculosis. The reasons so many mental patients get tuberculosis, and the reason it is so difficult to treat them, is that it is so extremely difficult to feed mental patients suffering from depression. One is faced with the alternative of persuading them to eat their food or of starting tube feeding, and one is always very reluctant to start tube feeding if it can be avoided because of the dangers of infection of the lungs. One is on the horns of a dilemma. I do not think the high incidence of tuberculosis in mental hospitals can be blamed on either the staff or the facilities. It is part of the nature of the disease.

Mr. Lewis: What about overcrowding?

Dr. Taylor: I entirely agree. The overcrowding has been due in part to the existence of the Emergency Medical Service which has used mental hospital beds for general purposes, but it is nevertheless a serious factor in mental treatment at the moment. The difficulties in mental treatment are less on the legal side, I think, than on the question of the physical facilities for the treatment of the mentally sick. On the whole the temporary treatment section of the Mental Treatment Act does not work badly and it has enabled enormous numbers of people to be treated in mental hospitals without certification, and the more people who can be encouraged to be treated under the Mental Treatment Act the better. In the treatment of mental disease we are, in fact, short of almost every facility that is required. There is a terrific shortage of outpatient or advisory clinics. There is a shortage of in-patient facilities for the neurotically ill; indeed, they almost do not exist. In the recent Hospitals Survey published by the Ministry of Health, in the Eastern region, for example, I think there were under 10 psychiatric beds in the whole of the region, apart from mental hospital beds.
There is one big exception and that is the Maudsley Hospital serving South London, but mostly there are no beds for neurotic patients. I agree that the correct thing to do is to have admission blocks for all types of psychiatric patients in general hospitals, where the people can be treated and put into their appropriate classes. Many of them will recover with modern methods of treatment, including shock therapy, but some will have to be sent


to the long-term hospital; however, every patient will then get proper psychiatric attention. What my hon. Friend described about the old-fashioned mental hospitals is true. They are an anachronism. We do not want great mental hospitals like that, and if we are to have mental hospitals, let us have small units, perhaps the size of the Bethlem Royal Hospital, with 250 beds, where a medical staff could properly look after the cases. We should also greatly increase the boarding-out system which has worked in Scotland with regard to the chronically ill with very good results. We can do much more in connection with boarding-out the chronic insane for whom further treatment is not possible. Mental hospitals are very short of nurses of both sexes. And the country is short of adequately trained general practitioners who can make a psychiatric diagnosis. As psychiatrists come from the Forces and get going in medical schools again, this can be made good, but it will take 20 years before every general practitioner can make a good psychiatric diagnosis, unless we get refresher training going for general practitioners very quickly. We are short of research centres. The only main centre with in-patient beds is the Maudsley. There is also the Tavistock clinic which should also be developed.
It is hard to estimate the extent of the shortage of psychiatric services, but a report was made by Dr. C. P. Blacker to the Ministry during the war and I hope that it will be found possible to publish Dr. Blacker's report. It was a survey of the whole psychiatric services of the country showing the difficulty and how it could be remedied. I hope that the report will be published along with other hospital surveys. The national psychiatric service can only be dealt with as part of the main National Health Service, and it needs to be tackled on the same lines as other specialised services, with outpatient services and specialists to visit the home if necessary. There is need for long-stay hospital blocks exactly as for other diseases of a chronic nature. There are also three special types of mental hospital which present peculiar problems which do not exist in any other hospital field. There are the voluntary registered mental hospitals of the Bethlem, St. Andrews and the Retreat at York type;

these hospitals are really non-profit making bodies with boards of governors, taking in middle-class patients on a fee-paying basis. I do not know how they should be brought in, but they should be brought into the National Health Service. There are also the private mental hospitals run for private profit. Some of them are all right, but some are very far from right, and they are maintained on a kind of snob appeal. The middle class people feel they do not want to send relatives to the county institution, so they send them to one of these places and pay six, seven or 10 guineas a week because they think they are going to get something better. The real answer there is to make our national psychiatric service sufficiently good to make these places unnecessary.

Mr. Lewis: Does the hon. Member mean compulsorily certifying them? Are there not some places where they can avoid it?

Dr. Taylor: Patients can be admitted to both types under temporary treatment, but they can be certified in both institutions. The third variety of hospital which needs consideration, although it is not a Ministry of Health concern is the psychiatric hospital for criminal lunatics, namely Broadmoor. I think that Broadmoor is an absolute anachronism. It is a fantastic state of affairs to suppose that there is one kind of person who is called a criminal lunatic. Any lunatic may commit an offence against the law, and it just depends on circumstances whether he will end up in Broadmoor or in a place like St. Andrew's Hospital with his relatives paying 12 guineas a week for him. I think we have got to face the fact that Broadmoor is a very bad place for the patient and a terrible strain for the staff, and that the proper way to treat these people is to put them under the ordinary psychiatric service and look after them exactly as one would look after every other psychiatric patient.
One last word about staff. The staff of the mental hospital service, as the hon. Member for Bolton said, are very isolated, not merely spiritually, but physically, out in these great places in the country. The remedy is to bring them into the out-patient service, the psychiatric clinic service, or the psychiatric block service in the main general hospital, and swing them about between the general hospitals, and the epileptic


hospitals, the mental defectives' colonies, and even the prison medical service. One would also like to see a general linking up of the psychiatric services with the psychiatric services in the colonies, which are nearly non-existent.

9.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I should be the last to saythat everything was well with the mental hospital services in this country, and, particularly, I have nothing to say in favour of the sort of Poor Law atmosphere that exists around a considerable number of these institutions, but I feel also that one does not do the best, so far as dealing with this problem is concerned, by a serious over-exaggeration of the conditions which really exist. We know some are bad and that they need improving, and a good deal of what has been said tonight will be given very careful consideration in connection with the reorganisation of health services of this country, to which my right hon. Friend is giving very careful attention at the present moment.
But let us get our picture really fair and clear, so far as this service is concerned. The number of people under care on 1st January, 1939, was, roughly, 133,000. On 1st January, 1945, it had fallen to 127,000, which gives a different interpretation of the problem with which we are faced. There has been a decrease of something like 6,000 cases in those years.
Now I know that a part of the explanation is that, since there are a great number of people serving in the Forces, those who become mentally ill in the Services are not counted in the numbers I have given; but I also feel that the general improvement in the social standards of people in this country, due to a real continuity of employment amongst them, has led to an improvement in their general standard and, therefore, to a decrease in this problem of mental illness. One of the real ways of tackling this problem is to maintain the general standard of life amongst the people.

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. Friend saying that there is now a decrease in the incidence of mental disorder?

Mr. Key: I am saying that the number of people in the mental hospitals has

fallen by 6,000 in the six years during the war.

Mr. Lewis: Because there was no room for them.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: Is not that due to the fact that the lighter cases were sent home in order that these places might be taken over as E.M.S. hospitals?

Mr. Key: I am coming to the question of the accommodation that is provided. What I am stressing is that the very black picture that has been painted to us is not borne out by the experience in the institutions that we have. It is true that during the war a considerable number of beds in these institutions were handed over to the Emergency Medical Service and, therefore, there has been a decrease in the accommodation provided and, as a result, there has been some inevitable overcrowding in the accommodation available. But that is beginning to remedy itself, and between 1st January and 31st October of this year no less than 2,273 beds have been restored to the Mental Hospital service in this country.
There is also the problem, which I admit to be a very serious one, of starring the institutions. In this, and in the general hospital services, together with the general health services of local authorities, we are suffering from a very serious shortage of nursing staff. This is one of the problems to which, in the last month or so, we have been giving very serious consideration at the Ministry, and I think that before the end of this week my right hon. Friend will be making a statement with regard to the things we propose to do to deal with improvements, not only in the conditions so far as the nurses are concerned, but in the conditions of the domestic staffs, which has a very great bearing upon the problem of recruitment to the nursing staff generally.
In the statement which he will make, I think the House will find that we have really got down to very serious consideration of this problem with an idea of so far improving the general conditions of the workers in these institutions that we shall get back into them a great number of the people required. I may say in passing that the number of people at present under training for the nursing profession is greater now than it has ever been in


our history, the real shortage of nurses being due not to a decrease in the number of people taking up the profession, but to a very great increase in the demand for nurses because of the great increase in the services which we are providing in the way of day nurseries, radiography, and so on.

Dr. Morgan: What about the wastage?

Mr. Key: Now with regard to tuberculosis, it has been said, and I think quite wrongly, that there is no reason why there should be a more than normal rate of tuberculosis amongst the people in mental hospitals. Surely the very condition of these people leads to their spending too much of their time in institutions. They are not living the normal life that people ought to live, and so they have a pre-disposition towards tuberculosis. It is true that the incidence of tuberculosis did increase in the early years of the war, partly due to overcrowding, and because of a reduction in the number of beds available. But since 1941–42 there has been a decrease, not only in the incidence of this disease, but in its death rate among those in institutions. It was said, wrongly, that there were no proper convalescent wards in the mental hospitals—

Dr. Stephen Taylor: In many.

Mr. Key: The first statement was that there were practically none. Of the 101 public mental hospitals in this country no fewer than 60 have provided separate admission units, and separate convalescent units. With the return of

peace, and a greater number of staff, there is no reason to believe that that steady improvement will not be carried on, and that in the days ahead conditions will greatly improve. Again, serious statements were made with regard to the standard of diet in these institutions. It was said that it had been brought down to the public assistance level. With that I cannot possibly agree. One of the factors which, I am sure, has contributed to the steady reduction of the death rate has been the attention which has been given to the diet of those who have been housed in these institutions. Scientific rationing has ensured a much better standard, and the Board of Control and local authorities have been specially vigilant. The Board of Control itself has analysed in detail the diets of more than half of our mental hospitals. As a comment upon the very black picture which some Members have endeavoured to paint, I want to say that of the patients who have been admitted, and who are being admitted now, to our mental hospitals nearly 50 per cent. are voluntary patients. If the black picture that was painted was really indicative of conditions I do not think that anything like that percentage would go to the hospitals. With what I said at the beginning may I end? I do not claim that conditions are what they should be, but I can assure Members that my right hon. Friend will give his best attention to this matter.

It being a Quarter to Ten o'clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.